In a detailed ruling, the Bombay High Court at Goa has set aside a trial court order that permitted additional expert evidence at the final stage of a long-running civil suit over a disputed Will. The Court held that such late-stage evidence cannot be allowed without proper justification and legal basis.
Background of the Case
The dispute dates back to 2009, when the legal heirs of late Stella Freitas challenged a Will allegedly executed by Ruby Almeida in favour of the petitioner, Vincent D’Costa. The plaintiffs claimed that Ruby was not in a sound mental condition at the time of executing the Will and that it was obtained under questionable circumstances.
On the other hand, the defendant maintained that the Will was genuine and executed voluntarily out of affection. Over the years, both sides led extensive evidence, and the matter eventually reached the stage of final arguments.
Read also:- Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Cruelty Case Against In-Laws, Flags ‘Vague Allegations’ and 7-Year Delay
Just before final arguments, the plaintiffs moved an application seeking to introduce reports from a handwriting analyst (graphologist), claiming that the signatures suggested Ruby was not mentally fit when signing the Will.
The trial court allowed this application in February 2024, imposing a nominal cost of ₹1,000. This order was challenged before the High Court.
Justice Valmiki Menezes closely examined whether such evidence could be introduced at such a late stage. The Court emphasized that procedural law requires parties to produce documents at the appropriate stage unless they can clearly justify the delay.
“The application must disclose sufficient cause explaining why the document was not produced earlier,” the Court noted, pointing out that no such explanation was provided.
The Court also highlighted that allowing documents at the stage of final arguments without justification would defeat the purpose of timely trials.
A significant part of the judgment dealt with the nature of the expert evidence itself. The Court examined whether graphology qualifies as reliable expert evidence under law.
It observed that expert opinion is only supplementary and cannot replace direct evidence. More importantly, the Court found that the reports failed to establish that graphology is a scientifically accepted field capable of determining a person’s mental condition.
“The opinion of an expert is only corroborative in nature and cannot be treated as conclusive,” the bench observed.
The Court further noted that the reports were based on photocopies and contained disclaimers, reducing their evidentiary value.
Read also:- J&K&L High Court Slams Safety Lapses, Orders Compensation for 3 Children’s Deaths in Hydel Tank
The High Court found two major issues with the trial court’s order:
- No justification was provided for producing the documents after closure of evidence
- The trial court failed to examine whether the reports were legally relevant or admissible
It held that such an order was passed “without jurisdiction” as the mandatory legal requirements were not met.
Concluding that the trial court acted improperly, the High Court quashed and set aside the order dated February 17, 2024.
“The impugned order cannot be sustained,” the Court ruled, allowing the writ petition and restoring the case to its earlier procedural position.
Case Details
Case Title: Vincent Philip D’Costa v. Stella Lawrence Freitas
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 185 of 2026
Judge: Justice Valmiki Menezes
Decision Date: 13 March 2026
Counsels:
- Petitioner: Ms. Ashwini Agni with team
- Respondents: Mr. Jatin Ramaiya with team
