Summary
The Supreme Court restored the order sending a disputed will and admitted signatures for handwriting comparison in a probate-revocation suit. The pleaded challenge that the will was fabricated encompassed the authenticity of the testator’s signature. Expert examination would assist determination of that issue, and the High Court had earlier permitted reconsideration after the parties’ evidence. The trial was to proceed according to law after receipt of the expert report; authenticity was not finally decided.
Issues
- Whether the disputed will should be referred for handwriting comparison in the probate-revocation proceedings.
- Whether the pleaded challenge to the will sufficiently disputed the testator’s signature.
Provisions considered
- Order XXVI, rule 10A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Scientific investigation that would assist ascertainment of truth on the disputed will’s authenticity was appropriate in the interests of justice. (¶¶ 4, 5, 8, 9, 10)
Held
- Orders concerning management of the religious institution rested principally on the probate order whose validity was itself challenged; they did not resolve the disputed authenticity in the pending suit. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- The framed issue alleged procurement of probate through a fabricated will. Challenging the will’s genuineness included challenging the purported testator’s signature on these pleadings. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- After the witnesses had been examined, reconsideration of expert comparison accorded with the High Court’s earlier direction. The District Judge properly ordered scientific examination to assist the search for truth. (¶¶ 5, 8, 9)
- The appeals were allowed and the High Court order set aside. The will and identified admitted-signature documents were to be sent for comparison; after the report, the trial court was to proceed according to law. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeals allowed; District Judge’s referral for handwriting comparison restored. Trial to proceed according to law after receipt of the expert report.