Telangana High Court: Original Deed Required, Certified Copy of Sale Deed Not a Valid Alternative for Signature Comparison in Loan Guarantee Dispute
Telangana High Court: Original Deed Required, Certified Copy of Sale Deed Not a Valid Alternative for Signature Comparison in Loan Guarantee Dispute
The Telangana High Court has recently ruled that in a loan guarantee dispute, a certified copy of a registered sale deed cannot serve as a viable alternative to original documents for signature comparison purposes. This decision underscores the court's emphasis on the necessity of presenting original documents in legal proceedings, particularly when verifying signatures.
This ruling stems from a case in which the petitioner (previously the defendant before the trial court) contested the authenticity of a loan guarantee agreement, claiming non-involvement in its signing. In his attempt to substantiate his claim, he sought to present a certified copy of a sale deed bearing his 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 refuted signing the guarantee agreement, asserting that their signature was forged. In his defence, the petitioner sought to send his signature on the agreement to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for comparison with admitted signatures. However, the FSL authorities returned the documents, citing the absence of additional required documents.
Subsequently, the petitioner sought to submit a certified copy of a registered sale deed, dated 19th January 2013, as evidence of his signature. The court, however, dismissed this application on the grounds that the certified copy was not a sufficient document for signature comparison.
The trial court denial was appealed against, giving rise to the present petition, and the matter was placed before Justice K. Lakshman for deliberation.
While affirming the dismissal, the Bench observed that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) explicitly sought the originals of documents containing signatures rather than a certified copy of a sale deed.
Further, it was determined that the sale deed dates back to 2013, preceding the disputed agreement from 2019. As such, it was deemed non-contemporaneous, prompting inquiries into the significance of the signature's consistency over time. The court clarified, "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 or bond is said to have been 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 signatures in general, it requires the original document, dismissed the said application."
Finally, the Court observed that the defendant did not provide an explanation as to why they couldn't produce the originals requested by the FSL, despite claiming ownership of the property.
“Further, the petitioner has not explained in their affidavit that they did not have any bank account, including cheque book, except vaguely mentioning that they did not possess the aforesaid documents. In fact, the petitioner admits that they purchased immovable property. When they purchased the immovable property, they must have been in the custody of the original document,” it concluded.
The court observed that the burden lies on the defendant to establish their claim of forgery. While acknowledging the FSL's lack of explanation for requesting specific documents, the court found the defendant's approach inadequate.
The court concluded that the trial court's decision was well-reasoned and found no justification to intervene. As a result, the civil revision petition was dismissed.
