Certified Copy Of Sale Deed Not Acceptable Substitute For Original Deed When Comparing Signatures In Loan Guarantee Dispute: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that a certified copy of a registered sale deed is not an acceptable substitute for original documents when attempting to compare signatures in a loan guarantee dispute. This decision arose from a case where the petitioner (defendant before the trial court) denied signing a loan guarantee agreement and sought to send a certified copy of a sale deed containing...
The Telangana High Court has held that a certified copy of a registered sale deed is not an acceptable substitute for original documents when attempting to compare signatures in a loan guarantee dispute.
This decision arose from a case where the petitioner (defendant before the trial court) denied signing a loan guarantee agreement and sought to send a certified copy of a sale deed containing her signature for comparison with the disputed agreement.
The plaintiff, before the trial court, had filed a suit to recover money based on a promissory note and a loan guarantee agreement allegedly signed by the defendant/petitioner. The defendant/petitioner denied signing the guarantee agreement, claiming her signature was forged. As part of her defense, she requested the court to send her signature on the disputed agreement for comparison with her signature on another document. The trial court initially allowed this request.
However, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), tasked with the comparison, returned the documents requesting originals of documents containing the defendant's "admitted signatures" such as cheques, bank account opening forms, etc.
The defendant/petitioner then filed an application seeking permission to send a certified copy of a registered sale deed containing her signature. The trial court
The denial was appealed against, giving rise to the present petition, and the matter was placed before Justice K. Lakshman for deliberation.
While upholding the dismissal, the Bench noted that the FSL specifically requested originals of documents typically containing signatures, not a certified copy of a sale deed.
It was further held that the sale deed was from 2013, predating the disputed agreement from 2019, and hence is not a contemporaneous document, raising questions about the relevance of the signature's form over time. It said:
“It is relevant to note that the aforesaid certified copy of the sale deed pertains to the year 2013, whereas the subject loan guarantee agreement/bond said to have executed in the year 2019. Therefore, the said sale deed is not a contemporaneous document and it is not an original document. The trial Court observing that the certified copy is not the required document as per the requirements of FSL Authorities and that for comparing the signature in general, it requires original document dismissed the said application."
Lastly, the Court noted that the defendant failed to explain why she could not produce the originals requested by the FSL, even though she had claimed to purchase the property.
“Further, the petitioner has not explained in her affidavit that she did not have any bank account including cheque book except vaguely mentioning that she did not possess the aforesaid documents. In fact, the petitioner herself admits that she purchased immovable property. When she purchased the immovable property, she must have in the custody of original document,” it concluded.
Accordingly, the Court observed that the burden lies on the defendant to establish her claim of forgery and while acknowledging the FSL's lack of explanation for requesting specific documents, the Court found the defendant's approach inadequate.
Hence, the petition was dismissed.
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3812 OF 2023
Counsel for petitioner: Dasi Ramesh