Stamp paper age and thumb impression comparison do not by themselves prove a sale agreement invalid or genuine.

An agreement of sale is not invalid merely because the stamp papers were purchased on different dates or more than six months before execution; under the Indian Stamp Act, old stamp papers may raise suspicion about genuineness and stamping, but not automatic invalidity. A court may compare disputed and admitted thumb impressions under the Evidence Act, but a vague or smudgy impression cannot safely be assessed on casual comparison without careful analysis or expert support. The propounder of the agreement remains bound to prove execution, and surrounding circumstances such as doubtful impressions and weak supporting testimony may defeat a claim for specific performance.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an agreement of sale written on stamp papers purchased on different dates and more than six months before execution was invalid; (ii) whether the court could compare the disputed thumb impression with an admitted thumb impression without expert assistance; and (iii) whether the High Court was justified in reversing the first appellate court in second appeal.

Issue (i): whether an agreement of sale written on stamp papers purchased on different dates and more than six months before execution was invalid.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 does not prescribe any expiry period for the use of a stamp paper. Section 54 only governs refund of unused stamp papers purchased within the preceding six months. The use of more than one stamp paper purchased on different dates, by itself, does not render a document invalid, though it may be a suspicious circumstance bearing on genuineness. At most, such a document may raise an issue of proper stamping and admissibility, not automatic invalidity.

Conclusion: The agreement was not invalid merely because the stamp papers were old or purchased on different dates.

Issue (ii): whether the court could compare the disputed thumb impression with an admitted thumb impression without expert assistance.

Analysis: Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permit expert opinion and also allow the court to compare disputed and admitted finger impressions. However, such comparison must be undertaken with caution, and not on a casual glance. Where the disputed impression is pale, smudgy, vague, or not clear, the court should hesitate to rely on its own comparison unless the characteristics are clearly identifiable and reasons are recorded. A finding based merely on a casual perusal, without expert assistance and without a careful analysis of the impressions, is unsafe.

Conclusion: The first appellate court was not justified in treating the thumb impression as proved on a casual comparison without expert support.

Issue (iii): whether the High Court was justified in reversing the first appellate court in second appeal.

Analysis: The burden lay on the plaintiff, as the propounder of the agreement, to prove its execution once it was denied. The surrounding circumstances, including the old stamp papers, the doubtful thumb impression, the absence of delivery of possession, the non-delivery of title deeds, and the unsatisfactory testimony of the attestors and scribe, created serious doubt about the genuineness of the document. The first appellate court had wrongly shifted the burden to the defendants and had reversed the trial court without adequate basis.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit.

Final Conclusion: The agreement of sale was not satisfactorily proved and the decree for specific performance could not be sustained, so the dismissal of the suit stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may compare disputed and admitted finger impressions, but it should not base a finding on a vague or smudgy impression without careful analysis and recorded reasons; the burden remains on the party propounding the document to prove its execution.

---