1 
Judgment:

2 Coram: GOH JOON SENG J.

3 JUDGMENT

4 The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant is for the sum of

$1,021,405.23 being the amount inclusive of interest calculated

up to 23 November 1989 placed on fixed deposit with the Defendant

in her name by one Anbudurai Arangannal < `Anbu' > on 24

July 1989.

5 The facts

6 The money, the subject matter herein, belonged to the estate

of one AR. S. AR Valliappan < `Valliappan' > who died

intestate on 3 July 1986 leaving AR. V. Valliyammai Achi <

`Valli' > and Rekha, his widow and infant daughter

respectively, as the only beneficiaries entitled thereto.

7 On 8 May 1987, letters of administration of the estate of

Valliappan were granted to one Palaniappan s/o Kannappa <

`Palaniappan' > and Palaniappan Lakshmi <`Lakshmi'>, the

brother-in-law and sister of Valli respectively.

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 On 2 August 1989, the specimen signature card was submitted by

Anbu to the Defendants. It transpired that the Plaintiff had

inserted her specimen signatures in all the four slots in the

column for specimen signatures. The four slots in the column for

verification signatures were also filled by what purported to be

the specimen signatures of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff admits

that the four signatures under the specimen signature column are

hers but alleges that those in the verification signature column

are forgeries of her signature. For convenient reference the four

specimen signatures will be referred to as G1 to G4 < G for

genuine > . Similarly the disputed signatures in the

verification signature column will be referred to as Q1 to Q4

< Q for questioned > .

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 The Chief Manager

18 Indian Overseas Bank

19 64 Cecil Street

20 Singapore 1646

21 Dear Sir

22 re: Fixed Deposit for SGD1,017,032.34 Deal Number 129786

23 

24 Mrs AR V Valliyammai Achi < that is Valli > , Indian

Passport C 796513, Robinson Road, P O Box 19, Singapore 9000.

25 

26 Yours faithfully

27 Signed: Yogambikai Nagarajah (Yogambikai Nagarajah)"

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 "The Manager

34 Indian Overseas Bank

35 Dear Sir

36 

37 

38 

39 1) Copy of British Passport number 647114C.

40 

41 3) Copy of Birth Certificate number: Y0672086.

42 

43 I thank you in advance for your co-operation.

44 Yours faithfully.

45 Sgd: Yogambikai Nagarajah (Yogambikai Nagarajah)

46 Flat 6 Neville Street London SW"

47 

48 

49 Dear Madam,

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 Kindly let us know if we can be of further service to you.

55 Yours faithfully,

56 

57 

58 

59 Dear Sir,

60 

61 

62 

63 BARCLAYS BANK plc

64 Ickenham Branch

65 27 Swakeleys Road Ickenham

66 Middlesex UB10 8DE

67 SORT CODE: 20-44-00

68 ACCOUNT TITLE: YOGAMBIKAI NAGARAJAH

69 

70 Yours faithfully

71 Yogambikai Nagarajah"

72 

73 

74 Dear Madam

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 Yours faithfully

83 Sgd: K S Krishnamurthy Senior Manager"

84 

85 On 10 August 1991, after a lapse of one year the Plaintiff

commenced these proceedings. When the suit eventually came up for

hearing before me, it was largely taken up by the evidence of

document examination experts. They were Mrs Ng Gek Kwee < `Mrs

Ng' > , the senior scientific officer of the Department of

Scientific Services, Institute of Science and Forensic Medicine,

Singapore. She was appointed `court expert' on the application of

the Plaintiff. As Mrs Ng's report was adverse to the Plaintiff's

case she called her own expert one Robert Radley < `Radley'

> , a document examiner practising in London. The Defendants

called one Ch'ng Beng Han < `Ch'ng' > who was formerly the

head of the Document Examination Unit and deputy director of the

Department of Scientific Services, Singapore.

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 On Q1 to Q4 he listed sixteen features therein that `appear

with considerable rarity in the known writings perhaps only one

or two of the 39 known signatures showing the same feature.' Thus

the sixteen features do appear in the Plaintiff's known writings

though rarely. They relate to the formation of letters, the

relative size and position of alphabet letters. He concluded as

follows: `I am consequently of the opinion that in all

probability these four verification signatures on the specimen

signature card are not authentic signatures of Mrs < sic >

Nagarajah but are good quality copies of her general signature

form.' He then ventured the reason for some one to forge the

Plaintiff's signature in the verification signature column. This

is what he stated:

92 "One reason why a forger < implying it was Anbu >

might consider it desirable to complete the Verification

Signatures on the specimen signature card is that once submitted

to the Bank, the specimen signature card with a totality of eight

signatures may be used for comparison against any subsequently

submitted documentation on which the signatures have to be

verified. In this case, the Bank would be in a position to

compare a forgery with a forgery. The introduction of forgeries

into a bank or in any other case does occur (note well the case

of Hitler's diaries)."

93 

94 

95 "The above differences between the mandate < Q5 >

and the known writings are difficult to assess. There clearly

appears to be some correspondence of some differences between the

Verification Signatures < Q1 to Q4 > and the known writings

which also appear to be differences between the mandate signature

< Q5 > and the known writings ... ...

96 The features of difference between the mandate signature and

the known writings, especially as many are noted in the

questioned Verification Signatures, are considered to be of a

highly suspect nature. I consider there are good grounds for

suspecting the authenticity of the questioned signature on the

mandate as I am of the opinion it could well be a copy by a

skilled penman of a genuine signature of Mrs < sic >

Nagarajah, that penman also being responsible for the

Verification Signatures."

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 But in the course of the hearing, having heard and considered

the evidence of Radley on the sixteen features of dissimilarities

in the `verification signatures', Ch'ng readily said `the

evidence favours the probability that the mandate and

verification signatures were not written by the same person'. On

Q5, Ch'ng however remained firm in his view. He said: `the

mandate was signed by the same person who signed the specimen

signature in the specimen card < G1 to G4 > . The signature

on the mandate of 23.11.89 is that of the plaintiff.'

103 

104 Dated this 2nd day of November 1995

105 GOH JOON SENG

106  JUDGE

107 Solicitors for the Plaintiff - M/s C Arul & Partners

108 Solicitors for the Defendants - M/s Ramdas & Wong