History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.216.2

v4.c63.216.2

20-21) say the same thing and add that documents have to be carefully scrutinized and that no certain conclusion can be established by documents alone (in every case), that women, minors and illiterate persons are deceived even by their relatives by the fabrication of documents bearing the names of these (women and others) and that this has to be investigated with skill. When there is a doubt about the genuineness of a document, it can be established by comparison with other documents admitted to be written or signed by the same person, by ratiocination, by the probability of the two parties being together at the time of the transaction, by citing the attesting witnesses,⁴⁴⁵ by the peculiarities or flourishes in writing certain letters or making certain signs (in the writing questioned and in other admitted writings), the previous transactions between the parties (or their subsequent conduct), and the source of the acquisition of the subject matter in dispute (Yāj. II. 92, Viṣṇu Dh. S. VII. 12, Nār. IV. 143-144, Kāt. 283 q. in Mit. on Yāj. II. 92). Viṣṇu Dh. S. (VII. 13) and Kāt.⁴⁴⁶ 285-286 (q. by Aparārka pp. 689-690) prescribe that if the debtor, creditor, witnesses or the scribe be dead the authenticity of the document has to be ascertained by (a comparison of the signatures on the disputed document) with other specimens of their handwriting or signatures or other documents executed by the debtor. Kāt. 287 (q. by Aparāka p. 689, Sm. C. II. p. 64 and Par. M. III. p.