'B', 'C' and 'D' never saw 'A' writing. But they give their opinion about the handwriting of 'A'. The opinion of which one is relevant?

Solution (By Examveda Team)

Definition of Relevant Opinion under the Indian Evidence Act:
Under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the court has to form an opinion as to the handwriting of any person, the opinion of someone who is acquainted with the handwriting of that person is relevant. A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting if:

1. They have seen the person write.
2. They have received documents written by that person in response to communications addressed to them.
3. They have dealt with documents containing that person’s handwriting in the course of their official duties.

Explanation of the Correct Answer:
The correct answer is Option D: Of all the above.

Each of the individuals—B, C, and D—has a legitimate basis for being acquainted with A’s handwriting:

1. 'B' (Option A): 'B' is a merchant in Delhi who has received many letters written by 'A'. Since 'B' has received multiple letters directly from 'A', he is familiar with A’s handwriting, making his opinion relevant under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act.

2. 'C' (Option B): 'C' is a clerk of 'A' whose duty was to examine and file A’s correspondence. Since 'C' has regularly handled A’s documents as part of his job, he is well-acquainted with A’s handwriting, making his opinion relevant.

3. 'D' (Option C): 'D' is Z’s broker, and Z habitually submitted letters purportedly written by 'A' to 'D' for advice. Since 'D' has regularly reviewed and advised on A’s letters, he has had repeated exposure to A’s handwriting, making his opinion relevant.

Since all three individuals ('B', 'C', and 'D') meet the legal criteria for being acquainted with A’s handwriting, the opinion of all of them is relevant under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Thus, the correct answer is Option D: Of all the above.