Andhra Pradesh HC Sets Aside Trial Court Orders, Directs Thumb Impression of Defendant Be Sent to Fingerprint Expert in Specific Performance Suit

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an unmarked agreement can be sent to a fingerprint expert and that ageing affects ridge quality, making prompt comparison necessary.

Justice Subba Reddy Satti, sitting singly at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, allowed two civil revision petitions on 10 July 2026, setting aside orders passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty, that had dismissed applications to send a disputed agreement of sale to a fingerprint expert. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.22 of 2024 — a specific performance suit rooted in an agreement of sale dated 11 February 1991 — had sought to have the first defendant's thumb impression obtained in court and compared with the impression on the document. The trial court dismissed both interlocutory applications, holding the step premature. The High Court disagreed, finding that the trial court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, causing a miscarriage of justice, and allowed the applications outright.

The Suit and the Disputed Agreement

The three petitioners — Chappidi Ravindranatha Reddy, Chappidi Prathapa Reddy, and Chappidi Pakkeera Reddy, all sons or daughter-in-law's family of the late C. Konda Reddy — filed the suit claiming specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 11 February 1991. The agreement was allegedly executed by Challa Narasamma (wife of Subba Rayudu) and the now-deceased Challa Basaiah in favour of their father, late Kondareddy.

The suit was originally numbered O.S.No.192 of 2015 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri. It was later transferred to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty, to be heard alongside O.S.No.6 of 2015 — a suit filed by the defendants themselves, seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession over the same property.

The defendants denied execution of the agreement. The second defendant's legal representatives contended that the signatures on the agreement were forged and the document fabricated. The first defendant, described in the plaint as a marks-woman who affixed a thumb impression rather than signing, similarly disputed the document's authenticity.

The plaintiffs had already had the suit agreement impounded and paid the requisite stamp duty and penalty before filing the interlocutory applications in question.

The Two Interlocutory Applications

I.A.No.402 of 2024 was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs sought a direction requiring the first defendant to appear before the court and give her thumb impression, so that it could be sent to a fingerprint expert for comparison with the thumb impression on the agreement of sale. They also sought a direction to the legal heirs of the second defendant to produce documents containing his admitted signatures.

I.A.No.403 of 2024 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) read with Section 151 of CPC. This application sought to send the suit agreement itself to a handwriting expert for examination of the first defendant's left-hand thumb impression and the deceased second defendant's signature, with reference to admitted specimens of each.

By the time the matter was heard, the plaintiffs confined their relief to a single prayer: that the first defendant be directed to appear before the court and furnish her thumb impression, which would then be sent to a fingerprint expert for comparison with the thumb impression on the suit agreement.

The trial court dismissed both applications on 24 July 2025. It reasoned that the defendants had raised a plea of limitation, which was a preliminary issue yet to be decided. It also held that substantial issues had not yet been framed, and that procuring expert opinions before the evidence stage and before documents were admitted or denied was premature.

The Legal Issue: Can an Unmarked Document Go to an Expert?

The core question before the High Court was whether an agreement of sale that had not yet been formally marked as an exhibit in the trial could be sent to a fingerprint expert for comparison of a disputed thumb impression.

Counsel for the respondents argued that since the agreement of sale was not yet marked, sending it to an expert did not arise and was premature. They also contended that, since the trial court had exercised its discretion in dismissing the applications, the High Court should not interfere while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Narsi Reddy, pointed to the denial in the written statement as the immediate trigger for the applications. He noted that the defendants themselves had suggested in their counter that the first defendant's thumb impression was available from her participation in the connected suit O.S.No.6 of 2015, which could be used for comparison.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Subba Reddy Satti found the trial court's reasoning unsustainable on two distinct grounds — one procedural, one scientific.

On the procedural question, the court relied on a judgment of a learned single judge of the same court in Ummaka Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (C.R.P.No.1379 of 2019, decided 3 July 2019). That decision held that Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC, which deals with appointment of a commissioner for scientific investigation, contains no bar against referring an unmarked document to an expert. The learned single judge in that case also took the view that referring a document to an expert before it is formally exhibited actually saves time and avoids delay in the trial. Justice Subba Reddy Satti adopted this reasoning and applied it to the facts at hand.

On the scientific ground, the court drew a distinction between expert opinion on handwriting and expert opinion on thumb impressions. The Supreme Court's observation in Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1979 SC 1708) was central: “The science of identifying thumb impression is an exact science and does not admit of any mistake or doubt.” Thumb impression identification, the court noted, stands on a higher footing than handwriting comparison.

The court went further and flagged an ageing-related concern. The first defendant was about 62 years old in 2015, meaning she was considerably older at the time of the revision. The court referred to a research article published in the Elsevier journal on the impact of ageing on fingerprint ridge density. That study observed that the ridge surface tends to flatten over time due to epidermal atrophy and remodelling of the dermal papillae, causing ridges to lose sharpness and making comparison progressively harder. The court reasoned that delay in obtaining the thumb impression would only compound the difficulty of comparison, and the trial court's insistence on waiting until after issues were framed and evidence was led was therefore counterproductive.

The judgments cited by the respondents in Velamala Jagadish v. Ippili Haranadha Rao and Kaveti Sarada v. Vemineni Hymavathi were distinguished. Both those cases dealt with sending documents to a handwriting expert for comparison of signatures, not thumb impressions. The court held that the different nature of the two forms of forensic examination meant that the caution expressed in those cases did not apply to a thumb impression dispute.

The court also addressed the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 227. Citing the Supreme Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. (2001) 8 SCC 97 and Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar (2010) 1 SCC 217, the court acknowledged that Article 227 jurisdiction is correctional and is not to be exercised as if the High Court were a court of appeal. However, it is available where there is a serious dereliction of duty, a flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, or where not interfering would leave a grave injustice uncorrected. The court was satisfied that the trial court had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, and that this failure fell within the correctional scope of Article 227.

Defendants' Own Stance Noted

The court took note of a telling concession in the respondents' counter-affidavit. The defendants had themselves pointed out that the first defendant's thumb impression was already on record in the connected suit O.S.No.6 of 2015, having been given during the trial there. That submission, the court observed, implicitly acknowledged the relevance and availability of a specimen thumb impression for comparison. It reinforced the conclusion that the trial court's resistance to directing comparison was legally untenable.

Order

Both civil revision petitions were allowed. The orders dated 24 July 2025 in I.A.Nos.402 and 403 of 2024 in O.S.No.22 of 2024 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty, were set aside. I.A.Nos.402 and 403 of 2024 stand allowed.

The trial court was directed to obtain the thumb impression of the first defendant and thereafter send the same to the fingerprint expert for comparison with the thumb impression on the suit agreement dated 11 February 1992. No costs were awarded. All pending miscellaneous applications arising out of the civil revision petitions were closed.