Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel and Others – Appellants
Versus
Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7528 of 2019, SLP (Civil) No. 4382 of 2019
Decided On : 23-09-2019
(a) Property law - Self acquired property by way of purchase - Will executed in favour of his son - Son would acquire the property as self acquired property - He would be competent to gift the property to a stranger to the family - It is for the plaintiff challenging the gift deed to prove that intention of the Will was for benefit of the family and not the son alone. (Para 21)
(b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Proving a gift deed - Attesting witness - Gift deed registered and fulfilling requirements of section 123, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - No denial of execution of gift deed - Trial court not returning any finding as to whether gift deed was forged - High Court holding deed to be proved - No error. (Para 30)
(c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 4 - Allegations of misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence in regard to a deed - Necessary particulars required to be stated in the pleadings - Absence of specific denial of a fact - Evasive denial - Such fact shall be taken to be admitted. (Para 36, 37)
Facts of the case:
Determination of validity of a gift deed falls for consideration in this case.
Finding of the Court:
There is no error in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The burden of proving the validity of a deed, such as a gift deed, lies on the party challenging it, especially when the deed has been properly executed and registered (!) .
If a fact is not specifically denied in pleadings, it is deemed to be admitted by the opposing party, and an evasive or general denial does not suffice to challenge the fact (!) (!) .
The property in question was purchased by the grandfather of the plaintiffs, and upon his death, it was inherited by the Donor through a testamentary disposition. Such self-acquired property of the Donor was within his full rights to dispose of via gift, and it was not necessarily ancestral property (!) (!) (!) .
The legal principle affirms that a self-acquired property can be gifted by the owner to any person, including strangers, and such property remains self-acquired in the hands of the donee, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary (!) (!) (!) .
The character of the property—whether ancestral or self-acquired—depends on the mode of acquisition and the intention of the original owner. A gift or bequest by a father to his son does not automatically convert self-acquired property into ancestral property in the hands of the son (!) (!) .
When a gift deed is registered in accordance with legal requirements, and there is no specific denial of execution, it is not necessary for the defendant to examine attesting witnesses to prove the deed’s validity (!) (!) (!) .
A specific denial of execution, as opposed to a general denial, is required to invoke the provisions that mandate examining attesting witnesses. Mere doubts or allegations of forgery without concrete evidence do not suffice to prove the deed was forged (!) (!) .
The burden of proving forgery or fabrication of a gift deed rests on the party claiming it was forged. In the absence of expert evidence or specific denial of execution, the validity of the deed is presumed, especially when the deed is registered and all legal formalities are fulfilled (!) (!) .
The absence of evidence of forgery, coupled with the proper registration of the deed and the absence of a specific denial of its execution, leads to the conclusion that the gift deed is valid and duly executed (!) (!) .
The court’s findings must be supported by evidence, and when the evidence shows that the property was self-acquired and the deed was properly executed, there is no ground for interference. The appeal was accordingly dismissed (!) (!) (!) .
These points collectively emphasize that the validity of a gift deed depends on proper execution, registration, and the absence of specific denial or evidence of forgery. The legal principles uphold the rights of the owner to dispose of self-acquired property freely, and the burden of proof remains on the challenger to establish any irregularities or invalidity.
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The order passed by the High Court of Gujarat on September 5, 2018 in second appeal is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants.
3. The appellants are sons of Chhotabhai Ashabhai Patel [for short ‘Donor’] who died on December 6, 2001. During his life time, he purportedly executed a gift deed dated November 15, 1977 in favour of defendant Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel [for short ‘Donee’].
4. The parties went to trial on the following issues:
(i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the disputed gift deed is fabricated?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are ancestral properties and late Chhotabhai Ashabhai had no right to execute the gift deed?
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant has no right, title or interest over the said property?
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
(v) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiffs have no right to file the present suit?
(vi) What order and decree?
5. The High Court framed five substantial questions of law and after giving findings on such substantial questions of law, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court on February 10, 2014 and the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court on October 9, 2017 were set aside.
6. The findings recorded by the High Court, inter alia, are that execution of the gift deed was not specifically denied in the suit filed. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Donee to examine one of the attesting witnesses in terms of proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [for short ‘Evidence Act’]. It is also held that the suit property is not ancestral property. The property was purchased by Ashabhai Patel, father of the Donor and it is by virtue of Will executed by Ashabhai Patel, property came to be owned by the Donor in the year 1952-1953. The High Court, thus, held that the Donor was competent to execute the gift deed dated November 15, 1977 as the property was not ancestral in the hands of Donor. The relevant findings on such questions which arose for consideration in the second appeal, read as under:
“92. Once again, at the cost of repetition, I state that Section 68 of the Evidence Act has been thoroughly misconstrued by the Courts below. The occasion for applying the rule of exclusion from evidence in Section 68 arises when a party seeking to rely upon a document requiring attestation, fails to prove it in a given manner. As observed by me earlier, the party will then not be able to use it as evidence. But this procedural disability against use of a document as evidence cannot by any stretch be regarded as an affirmative finding that the grounds of attack for avoidance of the deed as claimed in the original relief or cancellation subsisted. The plaintiff cannot succeed relying upon the weakness or a flaw in the case set up by the defendant. The law is that the plaintiff can succeed in the suit only on the strength of his own case.
xxx xxx xxx
105. The case of the plaintiffs is very specific. According to them, the suit properties were purchased by their grandfather and those properties came to be devolved upon their father by Testamentary disposition i.e. on the strength of the will of their grandfather. The Hindu Law, as it stands today, clearly postulates that if it is a self-acquired property of the father, it falls into the hands of his sons not as coparcenary property, but would devolve on them in their individual capacity. Where the property is a self-acquired property of the father, it falls into the hands of his son in his individual capacity and not as coparcenary property in such case son’s son cannot claim right in such property.
xxx xxx xxx
108. In view of the above, I hold that the suit properties devolved upon the father of the plaintiffs could not be said to be coparcenary property. The properties were purchased by the grandfather of
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
