Madras High Court· 24 July 2026

Does affixing a thumb impression instead of a signature make a settlement deed suspicious?

S.Lakshmi v. 1. P.Velusamy

AS No. 333 of 2013 · AS No. 333 of 2013
Coram: Justice K.Kumaresh Babu

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.68 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Affixture of a thumb impression by an aged settlor, where the attesting witness explains the reason and that explanation is not discredited in cross-examination, does not by itself create a suspicious circumstance casting doubt on genuineness.

Headnote

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.68 — Proof of registered settlement deed — Attesting witness evidence — Suspicious circumstances — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.68 — Attestation — Sole attesting witness examined — Held: Where one attesting witness deposes to instructions given by the settlor to the document writer and to execution and registration of the settlement deed, and his evidence is not discredited in cross-examination, execution stands duly proved and the requirements of s.68 stand complied with. (¶14, 45) Settlement deed — Thumb impression instead of signature — Old age explanation — Held further: Affixture of thumb impression instead of signature by an aged settlor, where the attesting witness furnishes a reason for the same and that reason is not discredited in cross-examination, does not by itself create a suspicious circumstance affecting genuineness of the settlement deed. (¶16, 45) Partition suit — Medical evidence of incapacity — Burden on party alleging unsoundness — Held further: A plea that the settlor was incapable of understanding the disposition on account of illness must be substantiated by cogent medical evidence; testimony of a doctor who treated the settlor only briefly for a diabetic ailment, without evidence of prolonged incapacity, does not establish lack of capacity to execute the settlement deed. (¶15, 44) Partition suit — Validity of settlement deed determinative of relief — Held further: Where the properties claimed for partition stand validly settled by the propositus in favour of some heirs to the exclusion of others, and the settlement deeds are found genuine, validly executed and acted upon, the plaintiff and any co-heir challenging them are not entitled to a share in the settled properties, and the suit for partition fails. Appeal dismissed. (¶19, 20, 46, 47)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 16While dealing with the contention raised by the plaintiff regarding affixture of thumb impression instead of signature in the settlement deeds, the Trial Court held that the same would not create any suspicious circumstance affecting the genuineness of the documents. The Court accepted the explanation offered by DW4 that due to trembling of hands late Palanisamy Gounder had affixed his thumb impression instead of signing the documents.

Paragraph 45A further ground to assail the settlement deeds was that the settlor, who had been affixing his signature in the documents, had only affixed his thumb impression in the settlement deeds, to substantiate their claim that the settlor was incapable of understanding the documents that had been executed. In that regard, DW.4, who was the attesting witness, had been examined on the side of the respondents and had categorically spoken about the instructions given by the settlor to the document writer for the execution of the documents and their registration, and the execution and registration of the same by the settlor. He had also contributed reasons as to why the settlor had not affixed his signature but had affixed his thumb impression in the said documents. It is an admitted fact that the settlor was also in his old age, and the reasons given by DW.4, which did not stood discredited during his cross-examination, substantiates execution of settlement deeds, as rightly held by the trial Court.

Acts & Sections

s.68 Indian Evidence Act, 1872

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of S.Lakshmi v. 1. P.Velusamy — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Does examining one attesting witness prove a settlement deed under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act?What medical evidence is needed to prove a settlor lacked capacity to execute a settlement deed?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections