Genuineness Of Property Transaction Cannot Be Doubted Merely Because Thumb Impression Was Affixed Instead Of Signature: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that genuineness of property transaction cannot be doubted merely because thumb impression was affixed instead of signature.

The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Krishna Murari also observed that every person has a unique thumb impression and thus 'forgery of thumb impressions is nearly impossible'.

In this case, the Trial Court, in a probate case, found that the Will of one Rajendra Singh was revoked by him and the applicant was thus disentitled to get the Will probated.  The High Court allowed the appeal of the probate applicant, finding that with the health condition of Rajendra Singh who suffered from paralysis before his death , it would not be possible for the testator to visit the Sub­ Registrar's Office, to cancel the Will.  

In appeal, one of the issues raised was regarding testator's thumb impression on the cancellation deed. The court noted that all the four deeds executed by Rajendra Singh in his lifetime, contained his thumb impression and not his signature and therefore adverse presumption on genuineness of the cancellation deed cannot be drawn merely because the testator chose to append his thumb impression.

"18. The key characteristic of thumb impression is that every person has a unique thumb impression. Forgery of thumb impressions is nearly impossible. Therefore, adverse conclusion should not be drawn for affixing thumb impression instead of signing documents of property transaction. Therefore, genuineness of the Cancellation deed cannot be doubted only due to the fact that same was not signed and Rajendra as a literate person, affixed his thumb impression. This is more so in this case since the testator's thumb impression was proved to be genuine by the expert", the bench observed.

The court noted that in present case probate applicant never raised any objection in regards to mode of proof of cancellation deed before the Trial Court. The court said that the plea regarding mode of proof cannot be permitted to be taken at the appellate stage for the first time, if not raised before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. 

"This is to avoid prejudice to the party who produced the certified copy of an original document without protest by the other side. If such objection was raised before trial court, then the concerned party could have cured the mode of proof by summoning the original copy of document. But such opportunity may not be available or possible at a later stage. Therefore, allowing such objection to be raised during the appellate stage would put the party (who placed certified copy on record instead of original copy) in a jeopardy & would seriously prejudice interests of that party. It will also be inconsistent with the rule of fair play.", the court added.

Examining other aspects of the case, the bench held that the Trial Court was right in holding that Rajendra was medically fit and had cancelled the Will himself.

Case: Lachhmi Narain Singh (D) vs. Sarjug Singh (Dead)
Citation: LL 2021 SC 388 
Coram: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Krishna Murari
Counsel: Adv Sreoshi Chatterjee for appellant, Adv Abhay Kumar for respondents

Click here to Read/Download Judgment