Must a party who denies his signature on a document take steps to send it for forensic examination and signature verification?

Paragraph 19The next question that needs to be considered is whether Ex-B.3 - Koor Chit is valid or not. The case of defendants 2, 3 and 6 is that, an oral partition took place on May 1, 1984 among the first defendant and his sons namely plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. Their further case is that, thereafter, for the purpose of remembrance, on May 22, 1984, Ex-B.3 - Koor Chit was written. The defendants' side examined one of the witness thereto, namely Karunanidhi as D.W.4, and the scribe thereto namely Balarama Chettiar as P.W.5. Their evidence prove the execution of Ex-B.3 - Koor Chit. This Court has perused Ex-B.3 - Koor Chit. It appears that the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 have affixed their signatures therein. The said document is written on an unstamped ordinary white paper. Though the plaintiff and the fourth defendant denied their signatures found therein, they did not take any steps to send Ex-B.3 - Koor Chit for forensic examination and signature verification while they ought to have done so. More so, when the plaintiff and the fourth defendant preferred to deny the said document in Ex-B.3 for the first time after 16 years of its execution. Substantial Question of Law (c) is answered accordingly. In Ex-B.3 - Koor Chit, the properties acquired by the first defendant under Ex-A.2 - Partition Deed had been divided more or less equally among the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. The properties being situate in the same street, are of similar features and value. To show the division of properties and the lie and location of the shares of the plaintiff and the contesting defendants, filed a rough sketch, which upon comparison with the Koor Chit, this Court finds to be correct. It could been that the allotment was such that defendants 1 and 2 were each allotted ¾ Cents contiguous lands, and defendants 3 and 4 were allotted 391 sq. ft. each, and the plaintiff was allotted nearly 360 sq. ft. with right to pathway from the main road. The recitals in Ex-B.3 - Koor Chit are in present as well as past tense. For instance, at one place it is stated in present tense as if the parties are thereby partitioning [“ghfg;gphptpid bra;Jbfhs;fpnwhk;”] and in another place it is stated in past tense as if the parties had been enjoying separately and as if they had already agreed to certain things [“jdpj;jdpna mDgtpj;J ... ... ... ehk; Kot[[ bra;J bfhz;nlhk; ... ... ... xg;g[f;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ.”]. In some places, future obligations have been stated, for instance, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 have to contribute their sister / fifth defendant's marriage. Last but not the least, the nomenclature of Ex-B.3 document is "ghf Th;rPl;L cld;gof;if". Relevant extract from Ex-B.3 - Koor Chit reads thus: "...ehk; midtUk; nrh;e;J ekJ Tl;L FLk;g tPL. tPl;L fhypkid bghUj;jkl;oy; Vw;gLj;jpf;bfhz;l ghfTh;rPl;L cld;gof;if vd;dbtd;why;/ fhyk;brd;w 1 yf;fkpl;lth;fspd; jfg;gdhh; ghthil gps;is Rakha; rk;ghjpj;J mDgtpj;J te;J 1970k; Mz;L Vw;gl;l gjpt[ bra;j ghfg;gj;jpug;gof;F 1 yf;fkpl;l gr;rKj;J gps;is te;jile;j br';fk; fpuhkk;. fpuhkej;jk; rh;nt vz;/205/2V/1y; cs;s tPL. $';fk fpuhk; g[v{;ir rh;nt vz;/234/3 vz;qs;s fhypkid Mf bkhj;jk; 04 1/2 bfhz;l mstpyhd tPL kw;Wk; fhypkidia ekf;Fs; fPH;fz;lthW ghfg;gphptpid bra;J bfhs;Sfpnwhk;/ me;jg;gof;F xt;bthUtUk; ek; jdpj;jdpna mile;J mDgtpj;Jf;bfhs;s ntz;oaJ vd Kot[ bra;J bfhz;nlhk;/ ,ij jtpu ek; midtUf;Fk; ghj;jpag;gl;l bghJ FLk;g brhj;Jf;fs; VJkpy;iy/ 1 yf;fkpl;l gr;rKj;Jg;gps;is Vfkha; rk;ghjpj;J br';fk; fpuhkj;jpy; cs;s Rakhd tPl;Lkid ,Jfis itj;J ,d;Dk; jpUkzk; bra;a ntz;oa (5 yf;fkpl;l bry;td; 1 yf;fkpl;lthpd; filrp kfs; rhe;jp Mfpath;fSf;F) jpUkzk; bra;J bfhs;s ntz;oaJ/ njitf;F Vw;g 2/3/ 4 yf;fkpl;l ehk; nkw;go jpUkzj;Jf;F ntz;o gz cjtpia bra;a ntz;oaJ vd;Wk; xg;g[f;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/ ,e;j Vw;ghl;il gv{;rhaj;jhh;fs; Kd;dpiyf;F ehk; xg;g[f;bfhz;L ghf Th;rPl;L cld;gof;if vGjpf;bfhz;nlhk;.;//"