-
by Admin
05 December 2025 4:19 PM
“Courts are not obliged to seek expert opinion under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act where interpolation in a document is clearly visible on its face” – Supreme Court In a notable judgment Supreme Court of India emphatically held that expert handwriting analysis is not mandatory under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 where material alteration in a document is apparent on visual inspection.
This ruling, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, comes as a significant clarification in civil jurisprudence, especially in cases where specific performance is sought based on disputed contracts. The Court ruled that if interpolation or tampering in a document is so blatant and discernible, a trial or appellate court may reject the authenticity of the document without invoking the procedural rigour of expert testimony.
“Interpolation So Blatant, No Cause for Expert Evidence”: Court Rejects Need for Section 73 Opinion
The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether the High Court erred in refusing to obtain expert opinion under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act when it found that parts of a sale agreement were written in a different ink, allegedly indicating interpolation.
The appellant (plaintiff) argued that without expert examination, the High Court should not have concluded that the agreement had been altered. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this contention, stating:
“We are not convinced that Section 73 has any application… in finding material alteration the courts are not obliged to always refer it to an expert; especially when it is clearly discernible on a mere perusal of the document, that too written in a different ink.” [Para 9]
This observation makes it clear that the need for expert comparison under Section 73 arises only when the alterations are disputed in a subtle or complex manner, and not where the tampering is visible and self-evident.
The dispute involved an agreement to sell two items of immovable property, of which Item No.2 was alleged by the defendants to have been interpolated after execution of the agreement. The trial court had decreed specific performance, accepting the plaintiff’s version that he was ready and willing to perform his obligations.
However, the High Court reversed the decree, observing that the sale agreement was tainted with material alteration – especially concerning the inclusion of Item No.2, which appeared to be written in a different ink, with inconsistent recitals regarding extent and consideration.
Despite the plaintiff’s contention that this required expert evaluation under Section 73, the High Court held that the discrepancy was evident on the face of the document and could be judicially noticed without expert assistance.
Section 73 Indian Evidence Act – Court's Power to Compare Handwriting and Signatures
Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 allows the court to compare handwriting, signatures, or seals in dispute with those that are admitted or proved to be genuine. While the provision empowers courts to make such comparisons, it does not mandate expert assistance in every case.
The Supreme Court, relying on past precedents and the nature of the evidence in this case, held that:
“The interpolation found by the High Court was on a mere reading of the documents, which is permissible, and Section 73 has no application.” [Para 5]
Thus, the threshold for invoking expert assistance under Section 73 was not met, and the Court ruled that the judicial eye was sufficient to determine the alteration in the contract.
Legal Significance – Strengthening Judicial Autonomy in Evidence Assessment
This judgment bolsters the principle that trial and appellate courts are competent to assess documents without always being bound to summon expert opinion. It preserves the judiciary's discretion in deciding whether expert intervention is necessary, especially in cases where:
The document exhibits different handwriting or ink;
The inconsistency is palpable and indisputable;
The document forms the sole basis for legal relief, such as specific performance.
The decision effectively discourages reliance on expert evidence as a delaying tactic, especially in civil suits where fabricated or manipulated documents are presented.
Altered Agreements Cannot Be Partially Enforced – Taint Affects Entire Document
Importantly, the Court also held that the entire contract becomes unenforceable if a part of it is materially altered. The plaintiff had attempted to salvage the case by giving up claim over Item No.2, but the Court rejected this manoeuvre:
“The plaintiff cannot selectively enforce a tainted agreement – where the contract is materially altered, the entire document becomes unenforceable.” [Para 9]
Thus, even if only a portion of the agreement is altered, and that portion is not pressed at trial, the taint affects the enforceability of the whole document.
This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court lays down that courts can reject documents based on visible interpolation without resorting to expert evidence under Section 73. It also reinforces that specific performance cannot be granted on the basis of a tainted contract, and partial enforcement is not legally tenable when the document as a whole is compromised.
In doing so, the Court has advanced the cause of judicial efficiency, documentary integrity, and responsible pleading in civil trials.
Date of Decision: 21 August 2025
