Case at a Glance
The Supreme Court has held that obtaining a handwriting expert’s opinion under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is not “essential” to decide whether a Will is genuine, because the court may itself compare signatures under Section 72. It restored a Gwalior trial court order refusing to send a Will to an expert in an eviction suit.
In an eviction suit (RCSA No. 577A/2020) before the 12th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior, the respondents applied, about four years after the trial began and after both sides’ evidence had been recorded, to send a Will to a handwriting expert. The trial court rejected the request on 6 October 2025, holding it was competent to decide the matter itself.
On 27 October 2025 the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior reversed that order, holding expert examination “essential”. The appellant pointed to a 1981 sale deed, admitted by the respondents, which recorded their father as a tenant, and argued that the late application would reopen the evidence.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is expert opinion under Section 39 BSA essential to decide the genuineness of a Will, or can the court compare the signatures itself under Section 72?
Expert Opinion Is Only an Opinion
The Court held that the law gives the court discretion either to compare the signature or writing itself or to seek an expert’s opinion, and that it is the court’s duty to compare and reach its own conclusion. It observed that “the evidence of an expert is only an opinion which is not binding on the Court,” so the High Court’s view that expert opinion was essential was “untenable in law.” The court may still seek expert help where there is doubt or the writing is smudgy, vague or very light.
The respondents relied on paragraph 16 of Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal. The Court distinguished it as a case about a finger impression, not handwriting or a signature, and said it cannot be read as making expert evidence essential in all cases.
What the Court Actually Held
- Expert opinion under Section 39 BSA is not essential in every case of disputed signature or writing.
- The trial court’s order of 6 October 2025 was restored and the High Court’s order set aside.
- The trial court’s eventual decision remains open to challenge by the aggrieved party.
- As the matter concerns eviction, it is to be expedited.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is an early Supreme Court ruling applying Sections 39 and 72 of the BSA.
- It discourages late applications that reopen evidence in long-pending trials.
- It reaffirms the court’s own role in comparing disputed signatures.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Litigants Disputing a Document
- Apply for expert opinion early, before evidence closes.
- Show why the court cannot itself compare, for example a smudgy or faint writing.
For Opposing Counsel
- Point to admissions in other documents that undercut the challenge.
- Argue that court comparison under Section 72 suffices.
Key Takeaways
- Expert evidence is an opinion, not binding.
- Courts may compare signatures themselves under Section 72 BSA.
- Thiruvengada Pillai concerned a finger impression.
- Eviction matters should be expedited.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. The court has discretion and may compare the signatures itself.
Where there is doubt or the writing is smudgy, vague or very light.
No finding was given; the trial court will decide, and its decision can be challenged.
Conclusion
The order keeps the trial moving and reminds parties that the court, not the expert, decides genuineness.
Practical takeaway: A late plea for a handwriting expert is not a right; the court may compare the signatures itself under Section 72 BSA.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com
Visit CourtKutchehry →