Whether court can draw adverse inference if a literate person puts thumb impression instead of signature?

 On the issue of testator’s thumb impression on the cancellation

deed, it is telling that all the four deeds executed by Rajendra Singh in his lifetime, contained his thumb impression and not his

signature. Therefore, adverse presumption on genuineness of the

cancellation deed cannot be drawn merely because the testator

chose to append his thumb impression. That apart, the Ext. B

Report of the handwriting expert (OW3) clearly indicates that the thumb impression on all the documents placed before the Expert’s opinion are of the same person i.e. of Rajendra Singh. Since the said Ext. B was marked in Court, without objection from the applicant, the genuineness of the same cannot be allowed to be questioned before the appellate Court. A contrary inference according to our opinion, was erroneously drawn by the High court by referring to the health condition of the testator, when the revocation deed was registered. {Para 17}

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.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5823 OF 2011

Lachhmi Narain Singh (D) Through LRs Vs  Sarjug Singh (Dead) Through LRs. 

Author: Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Dated: AUGUST 17, 2021

Print Page

Should the court draw an adverse inference if a person affixes a thumb impression instead of signing on documents of property transactions?

 On the issue of testator’s thumb impression on the cancellation

deed, it is telling that all the four deeds executed by Rajendra Singh

in his lifetime, contained his thumb impression and not his

signature. Therefore, adverse presumption on genuineness of the

cancellation deed cannot be drawn merely because the testator

chose to append his thumb impression. That apart, the Ext. B

Report of the handwriting expert (OW3) clearly indicates that the

thumb impression on all the documents placed before the Expert’s

opinion are of the same person i.e. of Rajendra Singh. Since the

said Ext. B was marked in Court, without objection from the

applicant, the genuineness of the same cannot be allowed to be

questioned before the appellate Court. A contrary inference

according to our opinion, was erroneously drawn by the High court

by referring to the health condition of the testator, when the

revocation deed was registered.

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.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5823 OF 2011

Lachhmi Narain Singh (D) Through LRs & Ors. Vs  Sarjug Singh (Dead) 

Author: Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Dated: AUGUST 17, 2021

Print Page

Whether thumb impression can be forged?

 In an attempt to upset the concurrent findings by the courts below, Shri. K.T. Sankaran, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the opinion of the expert without corroboration is not conclusive of the genuineness of the thumb impression by the 1st defendant. He also argued that the court has to examine the report with the help of the photographs of the thumb impression and find out whether the report is acceptable or not.

 In this connection, it is to be remembered that there is a difference between the opinion of the expert with regard to the handwriting and the Opinion of the expert with regard to the thumb impression. There is no forgery possible with regard to the thumb impression whereas an expert in forgery can write exactly like the original handwriting of another person. This distinction is well recognised by the decision of the Supreme Court. In Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab (MANU/SC/0129/1979 : AIR 1979 SC 1708), the Supreme Court has stated that the science of identifying thumb impression is an exact science and does not admit of any mistake or doubt. This decision was followed by this Court in various decisions including the one by a Division Bench in James @ Chacko v. State (MANU/KE/0238/1994 : 1994) 1 KLJ 871) even in a case where the impression was smudged but not to the extent of impossibility of comparison. 

Equivalent Citation: 2004(1)KLJ705, 2004(1)KLT991,(2004)2 crimes214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

S.A. No. 932 of 1994 (C)

Decided On: 05.02.2004

 Parukutty Amma & Another Vs.  Thankam Amma & others

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:R. Bhaskaran, J.

Print Page

Whether court can call upon a party to give his specimen thumb impressions?

The fallacy in the reasoning adopted by the trial Court is brought out by the judgment of the Division Bench in Guru Nanak Construction Company v. Jai Bharat steel Rolling Mills Jaitu, 1976 Cur LJ (Civ) 447, where after setting out the provisions of Ss. 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, it was observed, the bare reading of both these provisions how that the court has been empowered to direct any person to give specimen signature or handwriting with a view to get the same compared with the disputed ones. This power may be exercised by the Court for its own satisfaction or even on an application being made by any party to the proceedings. If these section are interpreted to mean that this can only be done by the Court for its own satisfaction that would be to perpetuate injustice."

There can, thus, be no manner of doubt that the Court was indeed empowered to call upon a party to give his specimen thumb impressions and this request could not be declined merely on the ground that it had been made by a party to the litigation and could be used as evidence by such party.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sheo Narain And Anr. vs Rawat And Ors. on 23 July, 1984

Equivalent citations: AIR 1986 P H 174

Bench: S Sodhi

Print Page