Veeraraghava Aiyangar vs Souri Aiyangar

This case turns solely on the meaning to be given to the word ""purports"" in Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Different views have been

taken by Jenkins, C.J., in Barindra Kumar Ghose v. Emperor ILR (1910) Cal. 467 : 14 C.W.N. 1114 and by Chandavarkar and Batchelor, JJ.,

in Emperor Vs. Ganpat Balkrishna Rode, . We are inclined to agree with the latter. We do not discern any object in limiting the scope of the

section to documents which are signed or contain some intrinsic statement of the identity of the writer: and apparently in English Law all that is

necessary to render proof by comparison admissible is a dispute as to the writing (Vide Stephen''s Digest of the Law of Evidence, Article 52,

Taylor, Law of Evidence 10th Edition, page 1340, and Phipson, 5th Edition, pages 93 and 94). In the second portion of the section under

construction the word used is ""alleged"" and as from the context it is clear that no contradiction between the two words could have been intended,

the impression left on the mind is that the two must have been used to express the same idea.

In our opinion, the Subordinate Judge was entitled in the circumstances to. compare the hand-writing of Exhibits B and D and that being so,

there was no ground for interfering with his decree.

We must therefore set aside the order of the learned Judge and restore the decree of the Small Cause Court, Appellant will get his costs

throughout.