Handwriting proof alone does not establish document contents; authenticity of signature is not proof of truth.

Proof of signature or handwriting under Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act establishes only authorship of a document and does not by itself prove the truth of its contents. Where the witness had no personal knowledge of the contents and the persons competent to speak to them were not called, the documents could not be treated as proved for the purpose for which they were tendered. Mere admission of such documents with a reservation as to contents was held to be of no practical value, and the objection to their admission was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether documents could be admitted in evidence merely because their signatures or handwriting were proved by a witness acquainted with the handwriting of the writers, without calling the writers or other persons competent to prove the truth of their contents.

Analysis: Proof under Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act was confined to establishing that the signature or handwriting of a document was that of the alleged writer. That proof did not by itself establish the truth of the contents of the document. Since the witness had no personal knowledge of the contents, and the persons who could speak to those contents were not called, the documents could not be treated as proved for the purpose for which they were tendered. Mere admission of the documents with a reservation as to their contents would have been of no practical value.

Conclusion: The documents were not admissible in evidence on the basis of handwriting proof alone, and the objection to their admission was upheld.

---