Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Citedby 543 docs - [View All]
Bakaram Jangaiah And Others vs Gunde Laxmamma (Died) By Lrs. on 24 July, 1998
J. & K. Board Of School Education vs Prem Kumar on 11 February, 1986
Jayalakshmi Ammal vs K. Lakshmi Iyengar Represented By ... on 11 March, 1992
K.M. Ramakrishne Godwa vs Senior Assistant Commissioner on 21 October, 1990
Kashful Huda vs Additional District Judge (Court ... on 28 October, 2002

[Complete Act]
Central Government Act
Section 47 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
47. Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant.—When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. Explanation.—A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. Illustration The question is, whether a given letter is in the underwriting of A, a merchant in London. B is a merchant in Calcutta, who has written letters addressed to A and received letters purporting to be written by him. C is B's clerk, whose duty it was to examine and file B's correspondence. D is B's broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to be written by A for the purpose of advising him thereon. The opinions of B, C and D on the question whether the letter is in the handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C nor D ever saw A write.