- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rama Avatar Soni v. Mahanta Laxmidhar Das
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant filed Civil Suit No. 2/34 of 2008/2003 seeking revocation of probate granted in Probate Misc. Case No. 14/5 of 2000/1997 in favour of the first respondent, Laxmidhar Mahapatra, on the ground that the alleged Will dated 12 March 1989 of Mahanta Natabar Das was fraudulent. During suit proceedings the appellant moved an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) requesting that the disputed Will be sent to a handwriting expert for comparison with admitted signatures of the testator available in earlier Probate Case No. 19/13 of 1982.
The District Judge, Puri, initially allowed the application on 18 June 2013, but the High Court of Orissa set that order aside in W.P.(C) No. 14977 of 2013, directing the trial court to consider the application after closure of evidence. After evidence was concluded, the District Judge again allowed the application on 15 March 2016. The first respondent successfully challenged that order in CMP No. 684 of 2016, and the High Court on 30 June 2016 set aside the District Judge’s direction to send the Will for expert examination. The present Supreme Court appeals arise from the High Court’s decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in a suit seeking revocation of probate on allegations of fraud and fabrication, the trial court was justified under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC in directing that the disputed Will be sent to a handwriting expert for comparison with admitted signatures of the testator.
- Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the District Judge’s order permitting such scientific examination.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The late Mahanta Natabar Das never executed the Will dated 12 March 1989; its signatures are forged.
- Admitted signatures of Natabar Das exist in Probate Case No. 19/13 of 1982 (petition, affidavit, vakalatnama, deposition) and should be compared scientifically with signatures on the disputed Will to ascertain authenticity.
- The High Court had already indicated in W.P.(C) No. 14977 of 2013 that the application under Order XXVI Rule 10A could be considered after evidence, which was precisely what the District Judge did.
Respondents' Arguments
- The Will was duly executed and probate was lawfully granted by order dated 24 April 2001 in Probate Misc. Case No. 14/5 of 2000/1997.
- Subsequent orders of the Commissioner of Endowments and other authorities placed management and possession of the institution (Kabir Chaura Math) with the first respondent, relying on the probated Will.
- In the plaint the appellant questioned only the genuineness of the Will, not specifically the genuineness of the testator’s signature, rendering handwriting comparison unnecessary.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the central dispute is the genuineness of the Will, which inherently encompasses the genuineness of the testator’s signature. It rejected the High Court’s view that absence of an explicit plea regarding the signature precluded expert examination. Citing the earlier direction of the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 14977 of 2013 that the Order XXVI Rule 10A application could be decided after closure of evidence, the Court held that the District Judge correctly exercised discretion at that stage to seek scientific assistance. The Court emphasized that when scientific investigation can facilitate discovery of the truth, ordering such examination serves the interests of justice. Consequently, the High Court’s interference with the District Judge’s order was held unwarranted.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Allowed; High Court order dated 30 June 2016 set aside. The District Judge’s order of 15 March 2016 is restored, and the Will dated 12 March 1989 along with documents bearing admitted signatures of Mahanta Natabar Das shall be sent to a handwriting expert for comparison. Upon receipt of the expert’s report, the trial court is to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Implications: The decision reinforces that allegations challenging the validity of a Will logically include challenges to the authenticity of the testator’s signature and that courts should permit scientific evidence when it aids fact-finding. The ruling affects only the ongoing suit and does not establish a new precedent beyond affirming discretionary use of Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC for handwriting comparison.
R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.06.2016 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in CMP No.684 of 2016 in and by which the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the first respondent thereby setting aside the order of the District Judge passed under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC thereby allowing the appellants prayer for sending the signature of the Will in question to hand-writing expert for comparison with Testator Natabar Dass admitted signatures.
3. The appellant herein filed C.S. No.2/34 of 2008/2003 seeking revocation of the Probate granted in favour of the first respondent
i.e. Laxmidhar Mahapatra in Probate Misc. Case No.14/5 of 2000/1997. In the Probate Miscellaneous Case, the Will in question executed by Mahanta Natabar Das was the subject matter in dispute but according to the appellant/plaintiff, the said Natabar Das never executed any Will as Testator in favour of the first respondent-Laxmidhar Mahapatra. It is stated in the plaint that late Mahanta Natabar Das during his life time filed Probate Case No.19/13 of 1982 for Probate of the Will executed in his favour by one Jasoda Dasi and in the said proceeding, the admitted signature of Mahanta Natabar Das are said to be available in the petition, affidavit, vakalatnama, deposition and the signature of Mahanta Natabar Das appearing in those documents are required to be sent to the Hand-writing expert for comparison along with the Will in question and whether the signature in the Will in question is that of said Natabar Das or not? On the other hand, the case of the first respondent is that the Will was executed by the Testator Mahanta Natabar Das and it was a genuine document and it was legally probated by the competent Court.
4. Since the appellant seeks revocation of the Probate Case No.14/5 of 2000/1997 on the ground that the Will of Natabar Das is a fraudulent one, the crux of the issue is the genuineness of the Will executed by Natabar Das in favour of the first respondent. The petition was filed by the appellant under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC to send the Will in question to the hand-writing expert, allegedly executed by Natabar Das in favour of the first respondent and probated in Probate Misc. Case No.14/5 of 2000/1997 with the documents containing admitted signatures of Natabar Das which are available in the court in the earlier Probate Case No.19/13 of 1982.
5. The application filed by the appellant under Order XXVI Rule 10A earlier came to be allowed by District Judge, Puri vide order dated 18.06.2013. The first respondent challenged the said order dated 18.06.2013 before the High Court in WP(C) No.14977 of 2013. By order dated 14.08.2014, the High Court set aside the order dated 18.06.2013 and directed the court below to consider the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A at a later stage of the proceedings that is after closure of the evidence from both sides. The High Court also directed disposal of the trial proceedings in CS No.2/34 of 2008/2003 at an earlier date. The trial commenced and parties adduced their evidence. At that stage, the District Judge vide order dated 15.03.2016 allowed the application filed by the appellants under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC directing that the Will dated 12.03.1989 be sent to hand-writing expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of Natabar Das which are available in the petition, affidavit, vakalatnama and deposition in Probate Case No.19/13 of 1982. This order has been set aside by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
6. To resist the appeal and the prayer of the appellant to send the Will dated 12.03.1989 to hand-writing expert, the respondents inter alia have raised various grounds as under:-
(i) Probate of the Will executed by Mahant Natabar Das dated 12.03.1989 was granted in favour of the first respondent-Laxmidhar Das vide order dated 24.04.2001 in Probate Misc. Case No.14/5 of 2000/1997 in accordance with the procedure;
(ii) The office of Commissioner Endowments (Odisha), Bhubaneshwar vide order dated 25.01.2002 in regard to Misc. Case No.179/2001 decided an application dated 04.01.2001 filed by the first respondent Mahanta Laxmidhar Das and given possession and management of the said Institution of Kabir Chaura; and
(iii) The office of Divisional Inspector of Endowment, Bhubaneshwar vide Report No.165 dated 04.09.2009 under Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act issued in favour of the first respondent in regard to the possession and management of the said Math and the management and possession was allowed in favour of the first respondent. Reliance is also placed upon the order passed by the Commissioner of Endowments in RC No.6/2015 dated 13.05.2016 in the revision filed by Mahanta Gopi Das against the order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneshwar in OS No.7/2007.
7. In all the proceedings before the concerned authorities of Endowments, it appears that the authorities have passed various orders in favour of the first respondent-Laxmidhar Das mainly based upon the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Probate Case No.14/5 of 2000/1997 dated 24.04.2001. The first respondent has been declared to be the person in management of the Institution only on the basis of the said order of Probate dated 24.04.2001.
8. As pointed out earlier, the appellant has filed the suit CS No.2/34 of 2008/2003 challenging the genuineness of alleged Will executed by Natabar Das in favour of the first respondent and seeking revocation of the probate of the will. As submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, in the said suit, issue No.3 has been framed that Has the defendant No.1 by practising fraud managed to get the Will probated, which was a fabricated and manufactured one? Hence, the genuineness of the Will in question needs to be decided that is whether the signature in the Will dated 12.03.1989 allegedly executed by Natabar Das could be ascertained only by sending the document to hand-writing expert. As discussed above, earlier in WP(C) No.14997 of 2013, while setting aside the order of the District Judge dated 18.06.2013, the High Court has observed that the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC can be considered at a later stage of the proceedings that is after closure of the evidence from both sides. After their witnesses were examined, the plaintiff/appellant again reiterated the prayer for sending the Will in question to hand-writing expert. If the scientific investigation of the document in question facilitates the ascertaining of truth, in the interest of justice, naturally it has to be ordered. Having regard to the issue raised in the suit, the District Judge was right in allowing the application to send the Will in question dated 12.03.1989 to hand-writing expert.
9. The High Court was not right in saying that, in the plaint, the appellant has challenged only the genuineness of the Will and nowhere made allegations with regard to the genuineness of the signature of Mahanta Natabar Das. To challenge the genuineness of the Will inter alia indicates challenge to the genuineness of the signature of Mahanta Natabar Das. In our view, the High Court was not right in saying that there was no specific allegation disputing the genuineness of the signature of Mahanta Natabar Das. In the earlier WP(C) No.14977 of 2013 when the High Court has observed that the prayer under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC can be considered at a later stage, the High Court was not right in setting aside the order of the District Judge dated 15.03.2016 in C.S. No.2/34 of 2008/2003 and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
10. In the result, the impugned order of the High Court in CMP No.684 of 2016 dated 30.06.2016 is set aside and these appeals are allowed. As directed by the District Judge in his order dated 15.03.2016, the Will dated 12.03.1989 along with the documents set out in the petition filed by the appellant and in the order of the District Judge containing admitted signatures of Mahant Natabar Das be sent to the hand-writing expert for comparison. After receipt of the report of the hand-writing expert, the trial court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law. [R. BANUMATHI] [INDIRA BANERJEE] New Delhi; October 24, 2018
Alert