Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The law recognizes that LTM identification relies heavily on witness testimony and the circumstances of signing; direct identification by the witness of the act of affixing LTM is considered more reliable ["KRISHNA NAIK S/O LATE NARAYANA NAIK AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS vs RAVIKUMAR K.T., S/O LATE K.G.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS - Karnataka"], ["SRI ROBERT REX S/O H.W. REX vs SMT PHILOMINA W/O CHIRSTOPHER D'SOUZA - Karnataka"], ["INDKAR00067298"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["KRISHNA NAIK S/O LATE NARAYANA NAIK AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS vs RAVIKUMAR K.T., S/O LATE K.G.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS - Karnataka"]- ["SRI THIMMANAIKA Vs SRI SWAMY - Karnataka"]- ["SRI N NARAYANAPPA S/O MARISONNAPPA v/s SRI PILLAPPA - Karnataka"]- ["SRI ROBERT REX S/O H.W. REX vs SMT PHILOMINA W/O CHIRSTOPHER D'SOUZA - Karnataka"]- ["SRI. AMEER SAB vs ABDUL KHALAK - Karnataka"]- ["FAKKIRAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA NADATTI, SINCE DEAD, REP. BY HIS LRS. vs MAHENDRA S/O. BASTIMAL RATHOD - Karnataka"]- ["ANNAPURNA AND ORS vs HANAMANTH - Karnataka"]- ["INDKAR00067298"]
In property transactions, registered agreements of sale often hinge on the authenticity of signatures or thumb impressions, commonly referred to as Left Thumb Marks (LTM). A critical question arises: whether LTM sign of a person on Registered agreement of sale could be identified by the plaintiff and other witnesses and same can be marked during the course of cross examine? This issue is pivotal in disputes over document genuineness, where witness testimony plays a starring role.
This blog post delves into the legal framework, drawing from established case law under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and related judgments. While generally permissible, such identifications must meet specific evidentiary standards. Note: This is general information, not legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The sign of a person—be it a signature or LTM—on a registered agreement of sale can be identified by witnesses, and this identification can be used during cross-examination to test authenticity. Witnesses familiar with the mark, having seen it made, are key to proving genuineness. Courts recognize this as standard practice, provided the testimony is credible and consistent. Vidhyadhar VS Mankikrao - 1999 3 Supreme 102
Key points include:- Witnesses who have seen the signature or LTM can attest to it.- Such evidence is admissible and subject to cross-examination.- Courts emphasize scrutinizing witness reliability to prevent fraud. Raj Kumar Sharma VS Raksha Devi - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 2411
Under the Indian Evidence Act, witness identification forms a cornerstone of proving document execution. For instance, in a case involving a vendor's thumb impressions, attesting witnesses (PW1 and PW9) were coherent and consistent regarding the impressions and sale consideration passage. This highlights how witnesses' familiarity establishes authenticity. Raj Kumar Sharma VS Raksha Devi - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 2411
Similarly, principles from Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act (for wills, analogous to sale deeds) require witnesses to have seen the signatory affix the mark. Failure to identify, as in one case where a witness has not identified the LTM or signature of his father nor has he given evidence with reference to Ex.D1, weakens the case. SRI THIMMANAIKA Vs SRI SWAMY
In partition suits, attesting witnesses identifying the testator authenticate documents, reinforcing that proper identification supports validity. SRI MANCHAIAH S/O LATE KULAVADI JAVARAIAH SINCE DEAD RERPRESENTED BY HIS LRS vs SRI ANDANI S/O LATE KULAVADI JAVARAIAH SINCE DEAD ON 06.01.2020 - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2001
Courts permit marking documents via witness identification, even in cross-examination. A judgment notes the lower court failed to consider the importance of witnesses' identification of signatures and the fact that cross-examination can be used to test the genuineness of signatures. Appellate courts must review all evidence, including cross-examination. Dulari Devi VS Janardansingh - 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 131C. Prithvi Raj Reddy VS GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 0 Supreme(AP) 578
Cross-examination tests credibility: suggestions can challenge if the witness truly saw the mark. In one instance, a plaintiff could not have identified the Left Thumb Impression found in Exhibit-D12, since no person can identify his or her own Left Thumb Impression found in a document when confronted in evidence, illustrating limits but affirming general permissibility for others. A. C. Nagaveni VS Akkamma - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 763
During trials, plaintiffs often examine themselves and attesting witnesses to prove execution, with documents marked as exhibits (e.g., Ex.P1). Unchallenged statements bolster claims. SHANKAR IRABASAPPA DODDAMANI vs BASAVANAGOUDA SHIVARAYAPPA GILAGERISHANKAR IRABASAPPA DODDAMANI vs BASANAGOUDA SHIVARAYAPPA GIDAGERI - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 10486
Sections like 45-47 allow opinion evidence on handwriting/signatures, but witness testimony who saw the act is primary and non-expert. Adverse inferences arise if signatures lack corroboration by independent witnesses. Vidhyadhar VS Mankikrao - 1999 3 Supreme 102
Related laws, such as Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, mirror this for wills: witnesses must see the mark. Analogously, for sale agreements, each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator principles apply to ensure attestation. SRI THIMMANAIKA Vs SRI SWAMY
In specific performance suits, plaintiffs prove execution by self and attesting witnesses, marking agreements without objection if stamped properly. B. Yuvasurya(minor) VS R. Panneerselvam - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 796
Typically:1. Plaintiff tenders the document.2. Witnesses identify the LTM/signature.3. Defense cross-examines to probe familiarity (e.g., did you see the person affix the mark?).4. Courts mark exhibits if prima facie genuine, later testing via experts if disputed.
In a sale deed fraud case, endorsements with LTMs proved consideration receipt, marked during evidence. BASAYYA SHIVAPUTRAYYA HIREMATH MAJOR VS BASAYYA RACHAYYA HIREMATH - 2013 Supreme(Kar) 1274
However, photocopies or unstamped documents face admissibility hurdles under the Indian Stamp Act, Sections 35-36. Secondary evidence requires originals' proof. Abhiyank Builders Ltd. VS Daulat Singh - 2016 Supreme(MP) 1023
Power of attorney holders cannot always bind principals on personal knowledge matters, emphasizing direct witness need. A. C. Nagaveni VS Akkamma - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 763
Not all identifications succeed:- Witness must have seen the mark made; mere familiarity insufficient. SRI THIMMANAIKA Vs SRI SWAMY- Inconsistent testimony invites rejection, as in cases relying on inadmissible photocopies. Sukhdev Singh VS Manish Agarwal - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 769- Own LTM identification by the person is improbable without aids. A. C. Nagaveni VS Akkamma - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 763- Expert opinions supplement but don't replace witness evidence.- Fraud pleas require rebuttal beyond oral evidence, per Evidence Act Section 92. A. C. Nagaveni VS Akkamma - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 763
In rent control or partition suits, cross-examination of common witnesses is allowed, but evidence must be case-specific. T. V. KRISHNA IYER VS ABDUL RASHEED - 2014 Supreme(Ker) 693
In specific performance appeals, due execution via witnesses defeats time-bar claims, as silence infers refusal. B. Yuvasurya(minor) VS R. Panneerselvam - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 796
Wills upheld when witnesses authenticate amid undue influence doubts, reversing misappreciations. SRI MANCHAIAH S/O LATE KULAVADI JAVARAIAH SINCE DEAD RERPRESENTED BY HIS LRS vs SRI ANDANI S/O LATE KULAVADI JAVARAIAH SINCE DEAD ON 06.01.2020 - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2001
Fraud vitiates deeds if proven, but solid witness ID upholds them. BASAYYA SHIVAPUTRAYYA HIREMATH MAJOR VS BASAYYA RACHAYYA HIREMATH - 2013 Supreme(Kar) 1274
Witnesses generally can identify LTMs/signatures on registered sale agreements, marking them during cross-examination to affirm authenticity. Backed by cases like Raj Kumar Sharma VS Raksha Devi - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 2411 and Dulari Devi VS Janardansingh - 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 131, this upholds evidentiary integrity while allowing scrutiny.
Key takeaways:- Prioritize witnesses who saw the mark.- Leverage cross-examination for/against.- Combine with documents/experts for robustness.
Property disputes turn on such proofs—stay informed, but seek professional counsel. For more on evidence law, explore our blog.
References:1. Vidhyadhar VS Mankikrao - 1999 3 Supreme 102: Witness sighting for ID.2. Raj Kumar Sharma VS Raksha Devi - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 2411: Consistent thumb ID.3. Dulari Devi VS Janardansingh - 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 131, C. Prithvi Raj Reddy VS GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 0 Supreme(AP) 578: Cross-exam role.4. Others integrated as noted.
#EvidenceLaw #SignatureIdentification #LegalWitness
When the document is a registered document and also the witnesses have been examined before the Court that is also taken note of the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.25 that D.W.1 to D.W.3, D.W.6 and D.W.7 have identified the photographs of D.W.1 to D.W.3 on Ex.P.1 document that is a sale agreement ... The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the defendants in order to overcome their legal necessities intended to sell the suit schedule properties....
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act requires, the Will to be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the ... He has not identified the LTM or signature of his father nor has he given evidence with reference to Ex.D1. ... There is not even a remote indication in his evidence that the deceased executed the Will in question in his presence or that he has seen the deceased ....
of Rs.20,00,000/- shall be paid within six months and the sale deed would be registered within six months therefrom. ... Hence, both the courts have erred in relying upon the testimony of both the witnesses. Moreover, while recording statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the opportunity to cross examine the witness is not granted. ... Therefore, it can be presumed that the Kuljeet Singh is hand in glove with the plaintiff and on the saying of the plaintiff#HL_EN....
He would then refer to the relevant cross-examination of plaintiff where a suggestion was put to plaintiff as to whether plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.9 and Sy.No.75. ... The evidence on record gives an indication that the attesting witnesses to the Will have identified the testator and have authenticated the documents. ... The registered Will set up by defendant Nos.5 to 8 dated 10.11.1983 was #H....
In determining whether to grant specific performance, the Court must examine the conduct of both parties, the fairness of the agreement, and whether enforcing the contract would result in disproportionate harm. ... By not stepping into the witness box, the defendant deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to cross-examine him on these allegations. ... This section empowers the Court to presume that evidence which could be and is not produced would,....
It is contended that even assuming that plaintiff had entered the witness box, she could not have identified the Left Thumb Impression found in Exhibit-D12, since no person can identify his or her own Left Thumb Impression found in a document when confronted in evidence. ... Section 92 of the Evidence Act excludes any oral evidence or agreement relied upon contrary to the recitals found in a registered document. ... It is true that it is the LTM of Smt. Akkamma. I can....
, could not present the witnesses for cross-examination? ... of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator……." ... witness examined by the plaintiff with respect to the factum of execution of the sale deed and the statement of the witnesses was not disputed, the Court should Smt.Neelavva marked at Ex.P.1 in O.....
, could not present the witnesses for cross-examination? ... of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator……." ... witness examined by the plaintiff with respect to the factum of execution of the sale deed and the statement of the witnesses was not disputed, the Court should Smt.Neelavva marked at Ex.P.1 in O.....
Below that endorsement, finds an LTM. Normally after taking LTM, signature of that person is also taken. Now, therefore, it is clear, this endorsement which is above the LTM, is relied on to prove the fact that the plaintiff has admitted the receipt of consideration. ... On 06/02/1990, the plaintiff has received the balance price of the suit land i.e. Rs. 2,000/- and has executed a registered sale deed in the sub-registrar office at Dharwad. As state....
It is pertinent to note that according to the plaintiff defendant’s wife has affixed her LTM to Ex.P4. During his cross-examination PW1 has admitted that the person who has identified the said LTM has not affixed his signature. ... As per the instructions of the defendant, sale agreement was prepared by the scribe in the presence of his wife and attesting witnesses. After receiving advance of Rs.6,00,000/-, defendant executed the #H....
Further, the plaintiff has proved the due execution of the registered sale agreement by examining himself and one of the attesting witnesses. Out of Rs.11,00,000/- fixed as sale price of the property, Rs.10,00,000/- has already been paid and the title deed of the property has already been handed over to the plaintiff to prove the due execution of the agreement and part performance. There is no evidence to show that the third defendant have any right over the suit property to resist the sale.
The conduct of the defendant where he denies receiving any amount apart from 2.50 lakhs, in spite of overwhelming evidence, speaks volumes about the genuineness of the claim made by the defendant. If the defendant has not entered into an Agreement of Sale with the plaintiff, there is no occasion for the plaintiff to make such substantial payments to the defendant. On the side of the plaintiff, in order to prove existence of Agreement of Sale, Exs.P-1 and P-5 has been marked and the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and spoken about the same and he has also examined PW-4 who is....
Thereafter the trial Court has framed the issues for adjudication. vide order date 25.2.2015 the trial Court has directed the parties to appear before the Collector (Stamps) on 17.3.2015 for the purpose of impounding but till today, the Collector has not passed any order for impounding. During evidence when the plaintiff has tendered the agreement to sale, the defendant raised an objection that it is neither registered nor properly stamped therefore, it cannot be marked as an exhibit.
It has further been held that secondary evidence; copy of agreement to sale since does not fall within the definition of section 2(14) of the Act, hence objection of defendants as to its admissibility cannot be accepted. The trial Court referring to the order dated 10-7-2009 passed by Division Bench of this Court, has held that permission to lead secondary evidence in relation to agreement to sale has been granted by this Court. No objection as regards admissibility of copy of agreement to sale was raised, therefore, in the light of provisions contained under section 36 of the Act, petitione....
Of-course, during joint trial, each tenant can cross examine the witnesses of the landlord. It is true that in some cases other grounds are also taken by the landlord. "Therefore, evidence of the landlord will be the same in all these matters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
