2017 (4) TMI 1607

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 3. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 1263 of 2015 against the petitioner herein, for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note dated 08-12-2012. The petitioner herein filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that he borrowed an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- from a person by name Raghava Arjuna Rao on 13-08-2010 and also created a mortgage in his favour; that at the time of borrowal, the said Ragha Arjuna Rao took his signatures in a blank promissory note and a blank cheque; that though the entire mortgage debt was discharged by him, the said Raghava Arjuna Rao filed a suit in O.S. No. 63 of 2013; that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry note and the matter on Ex. A.1 promissory note clearly discloses the variation. As such, it is necessary to sent the Ex. A.1 promissory note to the handwriting expert for deciding the age of the ink used for putting signature and the age of the ink used for filling the matter of the promissory note as there is a clear variation of 4 years approximately between the age of the ink used for putting the signature and the age of the ink used for filling up the matter in the empty promissory note." 6. In other words the only purpose for which the petitioner wants to send the suit promissory note for examination by the Handwriting Expert is to show that the age of the ink was nearly 5 years old and not one year old, when the suit was filed. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n if the disputed documents are referred to experts and their opinion obtained, such opinion constitutes only an opinion and cannot take the place of substantive evidence. 11. Taking clue from what the Supreme Court said in Shashi Kumar Banerjee, a learned Judge of this Court extracted in Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai v. J. Venkateswara Rao 1993 (3) ALT 446, another passage from the same author Osborn to the following effect: "There are those also who pretend to say how old a writing is by merely examining it with a hand magnifier or a microscope. This always is an exhibition, either of ignorance or of dishonest presumption. The chemical tests to determine age also, as a rule, are a mere excuse to make a guess and furnish no reliable ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the age of the ink, is not perfect. In cases of this nature any reference of a document to the Handwriting Expert just for the purpose of finding out whether the ink was 5 years old at the time of institution of the suit or 3 years old at the time of institution of the suit, is not likely to bring any fruitful result. Interestingly in one of the books relied upon by the learned Judge of the Madras High Court, namely "Handwriting Forensics" by B.R. Sharma, Chapter 25 contains a Glossary under the title "Documenpaedia". In the said chapter, there is an interesting portion relating to "INK AGE". This portion reads as follows: "INK AGE: Age of the writing can sometime be given in relative terms. Upkeep of the document plays an importan....