1. and 2. Only a handwriting expert's opinion could establish whether the signature was genuine or forged.
3. The court should call for an expert's opinion.
Partition suit: handling unethical claims of forged WS and Vakalatnama
Scenario: In a partition suit, the plaintiff claims 1/4 share of a property. Initially, all three defendants—including the younger son (D2) and the mother—filed written statements (WS) through a common lawyer, agreeing to their respective 1/4 shares. Later, D2 changed lawyers. The new lawyer filed a petition during the issue-framing stage claiming that: 1. D2’s signature on the previous WS and vakalatnama was forged by the first lawyer. 2. D2 never signed the previous WS or vakalatnama. 3. The court should strike out the earlier WS. As proof, the new lawyer submitted a different vakalatnama with a different signature of D2. Actual fact: All of the above claims are false — D2 signed the WS voluntarily. This petition appears to be an unethical attempt to nullify the earlier WS. Questions: 1. Can the court strike out the earlier WS merely based on a difference in signatures? 2. What kind of proof is required to establish forgery of a WS or vakalatnama in such cases? 3. How do courts usually treat such petitions when the previous WS was filed voluntarily and amicably?
Asked 2 months ago in Property Law
Religion: Hindu
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
9 Answers
In a partition suit where a written statement has been filed through counsel and accepted on record, the court will not strike it out merely because a later vakalatnama shows a different signature. A bald allegation of forgery, without any credible material, is not enough to displace a pleading that was filed earlier, acted upon by the court, and formed the basis for framing of issues. Courts proceed on the presumption of regularity of judicial acts and filings, and a party cannot be permitted to withdraw from an earlier stand simply by changing lawyers and making unsupported allegations.
To establish forgery of a written statement or vakalatnama, the burden is heavy on the party alleging it. The court would normally require cogent evidence such as a clear and consistent denial on oath by the concerned party, contemporaneous conduct showing non-participation, expert opinion of a handwriting/signature examiner under the Evidence Act, and, where appropriate, corroborative material like bank records, emails, or witnesses to show that the party never signed or authorized the filing. Mere production of another vakalatnama with a different-looking signature does not prove forgery; variations in signatures are common and must be evaluated scientifically and in context.
When it is shown that the earlier written statement was filed voluntarily and amicably through a common counsel, courts are generally reluctant to allow a party to resile from it. Judicial discipline requires that pleadings once filed and relied upon cannot be lightly discarded. If the court finds that the earlier WS reflected a conscious and informed stand, it may treat the later petition as an afterthought or an attempt to delay or derail the proceedings, and may even impose costs for abuse of process.
In practice, therefore, such petitions are usually dismissed unless there is strong, credible, and independent proof of forgery. The court may direct an inquiry or permit limited evidence only if a prima facie case is made out. Otherwise, the earlier WS remains binding, and the party will be held to its admissions, since admissions in pleadings are substantive evidence and cannot be withdrawn at will, especially in a partition suit where rights and shares are crystallized on that basis.
The court cannot strike out the previous vakalatnama or the previous written statements at the behest of the new lawyer's petition. A mere difference in signatures on two vakalatnama or pleadings is not sufficient for the court to strike out a written statement. You may note that a written statement once filed becomes a judicial record and is presumed to be validly filed. A WS cannot be struck out unless fraud/forgery is proved by cogent evidence. The burden lies entirely on D2, who is alleging forgery. The D2 can seek court permission to refer the papers for handwriting experts under section 45 of Indian evidence act for comparison of the signatures.
Since D2 is accusing an advocate of forging signatures and filing documents fraudulently, the court would rely upon the copy of the complaint before bar council agaisnt the advocate or a police complaint or an affidavit explaining why no action taken against this serious allegation. Absence of this weakens the allegation.
Court may infer that the party is attempting to resile from admission, delay in proceedings, set up a new defence after realising the consequences. The admissions in pleadings are extremely difficult to withdraw.
The court may dismiss the petition stating the reasons that the allegations of forgery are unsubstantiated, vague and raised raised belatedly.
Please be aware that you cannot disown the WS, if you want amendment, file a proper application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC”. Even then the admissions cannot be withdrawn lightly and the amendment may be rejected if it changes the nature of defence.
Once a WS is filed and on record, it is considered a part of the judicial proceedings. The court will not discard it based on a summary claim of forgery.
2)The standard procedure is to file an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the documents to a forensic expert.
3)D2 must provide "assured standard" signatures (contemporaneous documents from the same time period) to compare against the disputed WS.
4)the first lawyer should file an affidavit that D2 had signed the WS
1.No
2. forgery needs to be established by acts and signatures verification
3. Court will strike out the forged thing
Hello Concerned - Anwers to your queries below :
1. Can the court strike out the earlier WS merely based on a difference in signatures?
No. A mere difference in signatures is not a legal ground to strike out a previously filed written statement.
Courts consistently hold that, Variation in signatures is common and, by itself, does not prove forgery, A written statement that has already been taken on record cannot be discarded casually, especially when it was filed through an authorized advocate and accepted without objection at the time, Once pleadings are complete, the court becomes functus officio regarding substitution of WS unless exceptional circumstances (fraud proved to a high standard) are shown. Therefore, without strict proof of forgery, the earlier WS remains valid.
2. What kind of proof is required to establish forgery of a WS or vakalatnama in such cases?
Allegations of forgery are treated as serious criminal allegations. Courts require strict, cogent, and positive evidence, where primary evidence will be by getting a forensic handwriting expert’s report comparing admitted and disputed signatures and production of admitted signatures from reliable sources (government IDs, bank records, registered documents). Additionally your secondary Evidence can be testimony of the advocate who filed the earlier WS and vakalatnama, Court staff records showing filing procedure, identification, and verification and any contemporaneous communication or conduct showing D2’s participation.
Please note that the burden of proof lies entirely on D2 to prove forgery, the Court require proof beyond a mere preponderance of probabilities, because forgery is a quasi‑criminal allegation and simply filing a new vakalatnama with a different signature does not discharge this burden.
3. How do courts usually treat such petitions when the previous WS was filed voluntarily and amicably?
Courts generally view such petitions with suspicion and disapproval, especially when the earlier WS was filed through a common lawyer for all defendants, no objection was raised at the time of filing, the defendant participated in proceedings thereafter, the petition is filed late, such as at the issue‑framing stage.
At time the Courts treat it as an afterthought and often describe such attempts as “belated”, “motivated”, or “an attempt to resile from earlier admissions.” Admissions in pleadings cannot be withdrawn lightly as a WS containing admissions such as accepting 1/4 share cannot be withdrawn unless the admission was made under fraud or coercion, and such fraud is strictly proved. The court may impose costs to discourage frivolous allegations against advocates and to prevent abuse of process Earlier WS remains on record
Unless forgery is conclusively proved, the earlier WS continues to bind the defendant.
In civil proceedings, a written statement and vakalatnama already taken on record by the court are presumed to be valid unless convincingly proved otherwise. A mere allegation that signatures are “different” is not sufficient for the court to strike out an earlier WS, especially when it was filed through an advocate and acted upon in earlier stages of the suit. Courts are generally slow to unsettle pleadings that form part of the judicial record unless clear fraud or forgery is established.
To succeed on a plea of forgery, the burden lies heavily on D2. Normally, this requires cogent evidence such as:
• A specific application supported by a sworn affidavit detailing how and when the forgery allegedly occurred
• Examination of the earlier advocate and court staff (if necessary)
• Comparison of signatures by a handwriting expert under the Evidence Act
• Sometimes even a criminal complaint for forgery, since making such an allegation in court is serious
Without such strong proof, courts do not accept a bare assertion of forged signatures.
Where a WS was filed jointly, acted upon, and remained unquestioned for a considerable period (especially till the issue-framing stage), courts usually view later denials with suspicion. If the conduct of D2 earlier was consistent with the contents of the WS (for example, no objection, participation in proceedings, or benefiting from the stand taken), it further weakens the forgery claim. Such belated attempts are often seen as tactics to delay proceedings or resile from earlier admissions.
In most cases, unless forgery is clearly proved, the court will:
• Refuse to strike out the earlier WS
• Treat the earlier WS as binding on D2
• Possibly allow D2 to file an additional WS only on limited grounds (without withdrawing admissions), if justified
Courts also take a serious view of false allegations against advocates and misuse of process. If it becomes evident that the forgery plea is dishonest, the court may impose costs or even direct appropriate action.
In practical terms, you should oppose the application by highlighting:
• The delay in raising the allegation
• The voluntary and joint filing earlier
• The absence of expert or independent proof
• The legal presumption in favour of court records
If necessary, you can request the court to direct handwriting comparison or cross-examination of the earlier advocate to expose the falsity.
In summary, a court will not strike out a written statement merely because a later signature looks different. Forgery must be strictly proved with strong evidence, and such belated reversals are usually disfavoured and treated as an abuse of process unless clearly established.
All that D2 wants is to contest the suit
if he has engaged another advocate and wants to file a fresh WS, then he can do so
the matter will proceed to trial
no point wasting on the aspect time whether or not D2 had signed the earlier WS and vakalat
otherwise there would have to be a mini trial regarding D2 having signed the earlier WS or not which will unnecessarily delay the hearing in the suit
Dear client,
The court will not strike the earlier WS by reason of a mere difference in signatures on the two vakalatnamas. Since the reason is not sufficient enough for the court to exercise its power to strike the pleadings.
However, it will be upon the D2 to prove the burden of proof stating that there is no case of forgery with the aid of substantial evidence including the handwriting expert opinion and with other legally valid documents.
The usual judicial approach is that the courts will undeniably look into the veracity of the allegation made however if credible and substantial evidence is being submitted then the courts will weigh that over. So the court will not be striking out the WS in the instant case.
I hope this answer helps. For any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you.
