Needless to state, if they are of the view that the intervening time gap is too large, or the available documents do not aid the comparison fruitfully, rendering the exercise inconclusive, they are at liberty to report accordingly. All Miscellaneous Petitions are closed with no order as to costs. [A.S.M., J] [N.S., J] 14.08.2025

2025:MHC:1973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 07.08.2025
Pronounced on : 14.08.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
O.S.A.Nos.48 & 50 of 2025 and
C.M.P.Nos.3847 & 3845 of 2025
Tmt.Sudha Umashankar
1.Dr.Lakshmi Jayakumar
2.Dr.J.Rajesh …
vs Appellant in both O.S.As
3.J.Sanjeev … Respondents in both O.S.As.
Prayer: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order dated
19.10.2024 in A.No.3153 of 2024 in T.O.S.No.10 of 2008.
(In both OSAs)
For Appellant : Mr.R.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel for Ms.Deepika Murali
For Respondents : Mrs.Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.S.Baskaran
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
We have heard the detailed submissions of Mr.R.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Ms.Deepika Murali, learned counsel on record for the appellant and Ms.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr.T.S.Baskaran, learned counsel on record for the respondents.
2.Shorn of unnecessary facts, the brief background necessary to enable us to dispose these appeals is as follows. Dr.A.S.Ramakrishnan had passed away on 03.04.2003. O.P.No.722 of 2004 had thus come to be filed by the appellant before us seeking Letters of Administration in terms of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which stood converted into a Testamentary suit in T.O.S.No.10 of 2008. Trial is on-going in the T.O.S.
3.The claim of the appellant is that said Dr.Ramakrishnan, her father, had executed a Will dated 29.07.1987. While so, the respondents had filed an application in A.3640 of 2023 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to submit the Will dated 29.07.1987 (Ex.P1) for comparison of the signature thereupon with the signatures on Deeds of Declaration of Trust dated 16.03.1989 (Exs.D7 & D8 respectively), Partnership Deed dated 28.05.1990 (Ex.D9) and Release Deed dated 01.02.1971 (Ex.P6) to the Forensic Science Department, Chennai and for their expert report.
4.That application had been heard and ordered on 26.09.2023 and an Advocate Commissioner had been appointed as sought for.
5.The appellant is not aggrieved by that order, seeing as the purpose of the reference to the Forensic Science Department was for comparison of signature on Ex.P1 Will dated 29.07.1987 on the one hand, with signatures on Deeds of Declaration of Trust, both dated
16.03.1989 (Exs.D7 & D8 respectively) Partnership Deed dated 28.05.1990 (Ex.D9) and Ex.P6 Release Deed dated 01.02.1971, all which contained admitted signatures of the Testator.
6.While awaiting the report, the Forensic Science Department, vide letter dated 19.12.2023, sought additional documents containing admitted signatures of Dr.Ramakrishnan, executed proximate to 1971 since there was a time gap between release deed dated 01.02.1971 and the other documents, being Exs.P1, D7, D8, D9. While the former is of
1971 vintage, the others are of the years 1987, 1989 & 1990.
7. Their letter is extracted below:
‘From To
The Deputy Director, The Assistant Registrar (OS-II), Document Division, High Court, Madras – 600 104.
Forensic Sciences Department, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
——————————————————————————-
Doc.No.282/2023 Dated: 19.12.2023
Madam,
Sub: Examination of documents- Further Material – Reg.
Ref: Your letter ROC.No.8763/2023 (OS) dated:18.12.2023
(In the High Court of Judicature at Madras in
Application No.3640 of 2023 in T.O.S.No.10 of 2008)
****
While acknowledging the receipt of the documents along with the letter cited, I may inform the following,
1.This office received certified copies (photocopies) of release deed dated:01.02.1971, but in the Hon’ble High Court order dated: 26.09.2023 stated to submit the original Release deed dated: 01.02.1971 to the Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai – 4. Kindly clarify the same.
2.The questioned disputed document Ex.P1 signatures belong to the year 1987 (dt.29.07.1987) whereas given comparison admitted documents signatures belong to the years (1989 & 1990) [Deed of Declaration dt.16.03.1989 (Ex.D7), Deed of Declaration dt.16.03.1989 (Ex.D8) and Deed of Partnership dt.28.05.1990 (Ex.D9)]. Hence, some more admitted signatures of ‘Dr.A.S.Ramakrishnan’ made in the ordinary Course of business on some existing documents like Registered Documents [Sale deed] and any other valid documents before the disputed questioned signatures (1985-1988) are desirable for examination.
Yours faithfully,
Deputy Director
(Documents)
8.An interim report came to be filed by the Advocate Commissioner, wherein, the request of the Forensic Science Department has been materially and unilaterally modified, to state that some more documents from 1985-1988 were required, omitting the word ‘admitted’. The omission is serious and, in our view, has substantial legal implications.
9.Be that as it may, when the matter came up for hearing before the Court on 02.01.2024, and this is the say of Mr.Parthasarathy, an accommodation had been sought for by the learned counsel for the respondents for filing a memo of additional documents. This finds reference in paragraph 4 of the court’s order dated 02.01.2024.
10.On the other hand, it is the say of Mrs.Chitra Sampath that additional documents had been handed over on that very day to the Court along with a covering memo and hence, the appellant was well aware of the additional documents that were sought to be handed over to the Forensic Science Department for comparison of signatures.
11. She would also insinuate that the present counsel may not be in the full know of things as he had not appeared at the hearing on 02/01/2024. In fact, she would go so far as to allege that the appellant has changed representation only to get over the uncomfortable position of not having challenged order dated 02.01.2024 till date.
12.We extract below order dated 02.01.2024:-
Learned counsel on either side present along with the Advocate Commissioner.
2.Learned Advocate Commissioner has filed a memo stating that she has handed over the documents to the Forensic Science Department and also seeking additional remuneration.
3.The applicant/plaintiff is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as additional remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner.
4.Learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff seeks short accommodation for filing memo of additional documents.
5.Registry is directed to hand over the additional documents to the Advocate Commissioner.
6.For filing Commissioner’s report, post on
24.01.2024.
13. While at paragraph–4, the learned Judge states that the counsel had sought an accommodation for filing a memo of additional documents, at paragraph–5, he directs the Registry to handover the additional documents being certain letters stated to have been written by Dr.Ramakrishnan, to the Advocate Commissioner. A point to note is that while the order is dated 02.01.2024, the memo is dated 01.04.2024.
14.Both versions of the events are equally possible and given the variance in the factual position as projected by learned senior counsel, we prefer not to dwell on the above factual aspects as they are inconclusive and will hence lead us nowhere. Admittedly, order dated 02.01.2024 has not been challenged by the appellant, and based on that order, the Forensic Science Department has proceeded to embark upon a comparison issuing a report dated 30.01.2024 adverse to the Appellant. To put it differently, it was concluded that the signature on the Will does not match the admitted signatures of Dr.A.S.Ramakrishnan in the other documents. The question now, in fact, is whether at all the other signatures with which the signature on the Will was compared, have been admitted by the Appellant.
15.While so, Application No.2545 of 2024 came to be filed by the respondents on 23.04.2024 for issuance of Subpoena to the Scientific Officer and Expert, to give evidence in relation to report dated 30.01.2024, and on 24.06.2024 Application No.3153 of 2024 came to be filed by the appellant seeking to eschew Forensic Report dated 30.01.2024. Both the applications have come to be decided, adverse to the appellant, A.No.2545 of 2024 coming to be allowed and A.No.3153 of 2024 dismissed.
16. The specific argument of the appellant before us is that the impugned order has the impact of obliterating the legal requirement under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘Evidence Act’) providing for comparison of disputed signatures with signatures that are admitted or proved. In the present case, what has been supplied by way of additional documents are a series of letters where the signatures have not been admitted.
17.Our attention is drawn to the deposition of the appellant in the examination on 08.02.2023 before Additional Master – I. The appellant has entered the box as PW1, and was shown handwritten letters ostensibly written by the testator, addressed to his son Dr.Jayakumar.
Those letters are dated 03.07.1985, 11.08.1986, 19.08.1986, 20.10.1986, 04.11.1986 and 05.11.1986 and she was asked to recognize the
handwriting and as to whether it had been written by her father. In reply, she says ‘it looks like his handwriting. But I cannot vouch for it.’
18.Question 75 was whether the appellant recognized the signatures in those letters and whether she recognized them as being those of the testators, to which, she replies ‘I cannot vouch for the signatures of my father, found in the letters’.
19.Question 76 is ‘Do you mean to say that you cannot recognize
the signature of your father’ to which she says ‘I can recognize, I have said that the signatures found in these letters looks like it, but I cannot vouch for it’.
20.Hence, the signatures in the aforesaid letters are not admitted and those are the very signatures that were furnished to the Forensic Science Department as additional documents for comparison with the Will. Hence, the appellant would argue that this defeats the object, intention and purport of Section 73 of the Act, vitiating the reference to the Forensic Science Department and their report.
21.The learned senior counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would cite the judgments in the cases of Wander Ltd, and another Vs. Antox India P.Ltd., and Shyam Sel and Power Limited and another Vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited , specifically paragraph 37 to state that there is nothing indicating that the discretionary order passed by the learned Judge, is arbitrary, capricious or perverse.
22.She would point out that under the impugned order, all that has been done by the learned Judge is to state that the appellant has opportunity to produce oral and documentary evidence and additional witness to prove her case. Hence, according to her, there is no real prejudice that has been caused to the appellant and in this regard, she would assail very maintainability of the appeal stating that no appealable cause of action arises.
23.We have considered the rival contentions. We have also perused the judgments cited. The learned Judge in the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 has rejected the pleas of the appellant, being of the view that the appellant had received the memo with details of the additional documents without raising any objection. It was hence that those documents had been sent to the Forensic Science Department for comparison.
24.There was no objection to order dated 02.01.2024 and the application for eschewing the report had been filed belatedly only after the application had been filed by the respondents for examination of the Forensic Science’s Expert. Thus, he appears to believe that the move of the appellant is belated and not prompt.
25.Additionally, the learned Judge states that the appellant always has the opportunity to produce oral and documentary evidence as well as witnesses to prove her case. Thirdly, he says that the Forensic Report is not conclusive to decide the suit.
26.It is true that the application to eschew the Forensic Report has been filed by the appellant only on 24.06.2024, two months after the application was filed by the respondents to subpoena the expert to the box. However, nothing turns on this aspect of the matter, as one is still confronted with the legal question that arises, as to the application of Section 73 of the Evidence Act, to the facts and circumstances before us.
Section 73 reads as follows:
73.Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.- In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.
The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.
27.The object and purport of Section 73 is, as the provision states, to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal, is that of the person by whom it is purported to have been written or made. In order to establish the aforesaid, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person, is to be compared with the signature writing or seal to be proved.
28.One thing is clear, that the disputed signature may be compared only as against an admitted one. In this case, the handwriting and signatures on the series of letters, with which the signature on the Will has been compared, are disputed. This has been elicited in the cross examination of the appellant conducted on 08.02.2023 to which we have adverted at paragraph 17 supra.
29.The comparison of two disputed signatures will take the parties nowhere and it is precisely for this purpose that one would advert to Section 73. While we agree with the learned Judge that the report of the Forensic Authority is not conclusive to decide the suit, it will have its own persuasive value in the decision making process. In any event, the legal position is that such a report must be based only upon a comparison of a disputed signature with an admitted one.
30. The fact that the petitioner would have opportunity to produce other oral and documentary evidences and witnesses cannot obliterate the illegality of the Forensic Report which would, no doubt, be relied upon by the respondent. The signature/handwriting on the series of letters with which the signature on the Will has been compared, are yet to withstand the test of trial and be established as the handwriting/signature of the testator. Hence, comparing such disputed signature/handwriting with the disputed signature on the Will is of no avail and contrary to the purport of Section 73 of the Evidence Act.
31.These Original Side Appeals are hence allowed. Since the appellant states that she is not in possession of any other admitted signature in the time line of 1971, or prior to 1985 or thereabouts, the Forensic Science Department will proceed to effect comparisons of the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures alone and render their findings in that regard within four (4) weeks from today. Needless to state, if they are of the view that the intervening time gap is too large, or the available documents do not aid the comparison fruitfully, rendering the exercise inconclusive, they are at liberty to report accordingly. All Miscellaneous Petitions are closed with no order as to costs.
[A.S.M., J] [N.S., J]
14.08.2025
Index:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
sms
To
The Sub-Assistant Registrar,
Original Side, Madras High Court. 
DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. sms
O.S.A.Nos.48 & 50 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos.3847 & 3845 of 2025
14.08.2025