https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299004 The plaintiff, relying on a disputed promissory note allegedly executed by the deceased borrower, failed to prove execution after defendants specifically denied the signatures. The court held that, in the absence of reliable proof, the plaintiff could not obtain recovery on the basis of the instrument. It also found that the trial court wrongly relied on assumptions about signature identification and Section 73 comparison without first establishing admitted or undisputed signatures, and without independent corroboration or a sound basis for expert comparison. The finding on execution was therefore unsustainable, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff could not stand. en-us Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Nov 2021 16:50:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299004 The plaintiff, relying on a disputed promissory note allegedly executed by the deceased borrower, failed to prove execution after defendants specifically denied the signatures. The court held that, in the absence of reliable proof, the plaintiff could not obtain recovery on the basis of the instrument. It also found that the trial court wrongly relied on assumptions about signature identification and Section 73 comparison without first establishing admitted or undisputed signatures, and without independent corroboration or a sound basis for expert comparison. The finding on execution was therefore unsustainable, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff could not stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299004