Citation: 2025 (1) ALD 204 (TS)
Court: Telangana High Court
Statute Involved: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 45

1. Introduction

The case of Zahed Shareef v. Abdul Hasan & Ors. before the Telangana High Court primarily dealt with the scope and admissibility of expert opinion on handwriting under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The ruling clarifies two important aspects:

1. The relevance of time-gap between disputed and specimen signatures in determining whether an expert opinion would be useful.
2. The limits of the trial court’s jurisdiction while dealing with applications under Section 45 – particularly that the court should not prejudge the document’s genuineness at this preliminary stage.

2. Factual Background

• The dispute concerned a document allegedly executed in 2012 (a mutual agreement).
• In 2023, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 45 Evidence Act to send the disputed document for comparison with the signatures of the parties by a handwriting expert.
• However, the plaintiff did not provide contemporaneous signatures from the relevant period (2012) for effective comparison.
• The trial court rejected the application, assigning two reasons:
  1. The document in question was unregistered.
  2. The plaintiff had not taken steps to pay proper stamp duty on it.

The matter was challenged before the High Court.

3. Legal Issue

The central issue before the High Court was:

👉 Whether parties are entitled to seek expert opinion on a disputed document under Section 45 of the Evidence Act when the specimen signatures available for comparison are separated by a long gap (here, nearly 11 years), and whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application based on registration and stamp duty grounds?

4. Observations of the Court

1. Time Gap in Signatures:
   • The Court observed that expert comparison becomes futile when there is a long time gap (11 years in this case) between the disputed and specimen signatures.
   • With such a gap, natural changes in handwriting may make any expert opinion unreliable or of little probative value.
2. Irrelevance of Registration and Stamp Duty at Section 45 Stage:
   • The trial court had rejected the application partly on the ground that the disputed document was unregistered and that stamp duty had not been paid.
   • The High Court held that these grounds are not germane to deciding an application under Section 45.
   • At this stage, the only consideration is whether the disputed handwriting can be compared with genuine contemporaneous specimens.
   • Questions of registration, stamp duty, or the genuineness of the document are matters to be decided at trial, not while deciding the application.
3. Scope of Section 45:
   • Section 45 allows the court to obtain expert opinion on handwriting, but such power must be exercised within prescribed parameters.
   • The trial court cannot, at this stage, express any view on the validity or genuineness of the document itself. Its role is confined to deciding whether expert assistance would aid in adjudication.

5. Ratio Decidendi (Legal Principle)

• An application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send a document to a handwriting expert cannot be entertained when there is no availability of contemporaneous signatures for comparison and the gap between the disputed and specimen signatures is unduly long (11 years in this case).
• While deciding such applications, the trial court must confine itself to the requirements under Section 45 and should not base its decision on extraneous factors such as registration status or payment of stamp duty.
• The trial court, at this preliminary stage, is not entitled to express any opinion on the genuineness of the document.

6. Significance of the Ruling

1. Clarifies Limits of Section 45 Applications:
   • The judgment draws a clear boundary: courts should only assess whether expert comparison is feasible and useful, not prejudge validity issues.
2. Guidance on Time-Gap in Handwriting Comparison:
   • Establishes that sending documents for expert comparison without contemporaneous signatures serves no meaningful purpose, preventing waste of judicial time.
3. Separation of Procedural and Substantive Issues:
   • Emphasizes that procedural issues like expert examination should not be mixed with substantive issues like registration, stamp duty, or document validity.

7. Conclusion

The Telangana High Court’s ruling in Zahed Shareef v. Abdul Hasan is significant in reinforcing the limited but important scope of Section 45 Evidence Act. It clarifies that while parties may seek expert opinion, such a request must be supported by contemporaneous material to make comparison meaningful. At the same time, it cautions trial courts against overstepping their jurisdiction by commenting on the genuineness or legal enforceability of documents at the stage of considering applications under Section 45.