Lachhmi Narain Singh (D) Through LRs & Ors. Vs. Sarjug Singh (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. - (Supreme Court) (17 Aug 2021)

Genuineness of property transaction cannot be doubted merely because thumb impression was affixed instead of signature

MANU/SC/0536/2021

Property

Present appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the High Court whereby the appeal filed by the probate applicant was allowed in his favour by concluding that, the Will favouring Sarjug Singh was not cancelled. Thus, the appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision which held that, the applicant is disentitled to get the Will probated as the same was revoked. The High Court to give the impugned verdict against the objectors, disbelieved the registered deed of cancellation dated 2nd February, 1963 (Exbt C) whereby, the Exbt 2 Will, was revoked by the testator.

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 in a jeopardy and would seriously prejudice interests of that party.

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. The testator’s thumb impression was proved to be genuine by the expert.

The Trial Court was right in holding that testator was medically fit and had cancelled the Will himself. It is also seen that, the evidences of the relevant OWs have withstood the scrutiny of the Trial Court and those have remained unshaken and should be trusted. In view of the omission of the probate applicants to raise objection regarding mode of proof before the trial Court, present Court find merit in the case of the objectors. Impugned order of High Court is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : GENUINENESS PROPERTY TRANSACTION THUMB IMPRESSION