Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act can be invoked only in relation to an admitted document for the purpose of comparison of signatures or handwriting.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while setting aside a Telangana High Court order that had permitted a defendant to seek forensic examination of a document forming the basis of the plaintiff's case in a long-standing land dispute.

The case arose out of a 50-year-old ownership conflict concerning a parcel of land. The respondent had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership, relying on the outcome of an earlier suit from 1975. The appellant's family disputed the genuineness of a written statement from that earlier proceeding, alleging that their grandfather's signature had been forged.

After the conclusion of the trial, the defendants filed an application seeking to send the document for handwriting analysis under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, contending that expert opinion was necessary to verify the alleged forgery. The Trial Court dismissed the plea, observing that it related to a decades-old record and lacked sufficient basis. However, the Telangana High Court later allowed the request, directing that the document be examined by a forensic expert “in the interests of justice.”

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the bench underscored the limited scope of Sections 45 and 73, which govern expert opinions and the comparison of handwriting or signatures.

"In a suit for declaration and injunction, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case. Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Act can only be invoked for an admitted document for the purpose of comparison of signatures or handwriting,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the Trial Court's order rejecting the application for forensic examination.

Cause Title: HUSSAIN BIN AWAZ VERSUS MITTAPALLY VENKATARAMULU & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1083

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. P.srinivas Reddy, Adv. M/s Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. D. Manohar Rao, Adv. Mr. Hanuman Prasad, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR