Handwriting experts are not the default answer to a disputed signature. Expert evidence “cannot be called routinely”, the Supreme Court has held, and courts must make the Section 72 comparison under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 themselves.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Setting aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had sent a disputed Will to a handwriting expert, the Supreme Court has held that a court cannot sidestep comparing the signature or writing itself by saying that it is not an expert. [Gopal Pathak v. Nitin Alias Pappu & Anr.]
The judgment, in Civil Appeal No. 13004 of 2026 (arising from SLP (C) No. 513 of 2026), was delivered on 18 September 2026 by a Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan.
Comparing the writing is the court’s own task
Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam lets a court compare a disputed signature, writing or seal with one that is admitted or proved to be that of the person concerned. The Bench held that where the court is able to make that comparison and reach its own conclusion, sending every such dispute to an expert is impermissible:
“It is impermissible to send every case involving disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression for expert examination when the Court can compare the signature or writing and reach its own conclusion.”
Nor can the duty be avoided by pleading a lack of expertise, the Court said, since expert evidence is only an opinion and does not bind the court:
“Expert evidence cannot be called routinely on the mere ground that the Courts are not expert to ascertain the genuineness of the handwriting/signature/finger impression.”
Discretion nonetheless stays with the court for cases of genuine doubt:
“The Court has full discretion to seek expert opinion like where it has any doubt or the writing/impression is smudgy, vague or very light.”
The Bench held that the High Court’s view that expert opinion was essential to determine the genuineness of the Will was untenable in law.
ALSO READ: Suspicious Wills Won’t Pass, Court Must Examine Them to Their Logical Conclusion: Bombay High Court
How a Gwalior eviction case reached the Court
The appeal arose from an eviction matter before the 12th Civil Judge at Gwalior, in which the genuineness of a Will was in dispute. The respondents asked for the Will to be examined by a handwriting expert, and the trial court rejected that application by an order of 6 October 2025.
By an order of 27 October 2025 in MP No. 5813 of 2025, the High Court reversed the trial court, holding that expert opinion was essential to determine the genuineness of the Will. The appellant, Gopal Pathak, took that order to the Supreme Court.
What each side argued
The appellant argued that the application for expert opinion came four years after the trial began in 2020, once both sides had completed their evidence, and that allowing it would reopen the entire evidentiary process. He also pointed to a Second Sale Deed dated 20 October 1981 which, he submitted, recorded the respondents’ father as a tenant. He further submitted that courts retain discretion whether to decide the matter themselves or seek expert assistance.
The respondents contended that the Will lacked genuineness and that expert comparison was the only viable remedy. They relied on Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal [(2008) 4 SCC 530] for the proposition that where handwriting, signature or finger impression is disputed, a finding by the court alone could be hazardous and risky, and the matter should be sent to an expert.
Why Thiruvengada Pillai did not help
The Court noted that Thiruvengada Pillai concerned disputed finger impressions, not handwriting or signatures, and was therefore distinguishable. It found no defect in the trial court’s approach.
Result
The appeal was allowed. The High Court’s order of 27 October 2025 was set aside and the trial court’s order of 6 October 2025 was restored. The Court directed that the eviction matter be expedited and disposed of all pending applications.
Why the judgment matters
Under the ruling, comparing signatures under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is the court’s own task and is not to be passed to an expert as a matter of course. It also signals that applications for expert opinion filed late, after the evidence is complete, are open to scrutiny, while trial courts remain free to call for an expert where the writing or impression is unclear and they are in genuine doubt.
Case Title: Gopal Pathak v. Nitin Alias Pappu & Anr. | Civil Appeal No. 13004 of 2026 (arising from SLP (C) No. 513 of 2026) | 2026 INSC 1085 | Judgment: 18 September 2026 | Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan
Appearances: For the Appellant: Advocates Neelakshi Bhadauria, Sarthak Karol, Shashank Sharma, Tanishka Pawar and Darshan Sejwal. For the Respondents: Advocate Tanya Raizada.