Execution of a document requires an intention to bring it into existence. Mere signing of a document without the intention of bringing it into existence does not amount to execution.

Headnote:
Will - Execution - Proof - Signature on a document without the intention of bringing it into existence does not amount to execution - Sale deed - Execution - Proof - Admission of signature on a document is not necessarily an admission of execution - Circumstances may negative such an inference - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 41 - Protection of transferee - Transferee must take reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor has power to transfer and acts in good faith - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14 - Enlargement of estate - Applies only to property possessed by a female Hindu immediately before the commencement of the Act.
Fact of the Case:

Gaurishankar, a retired Director of the Veterinary Department, possessed property in Nagpur. He had three nephews, Lalitmohan, Rammohan, and Shyammohan, who were looked upon almost as his sons. Gaurishankar died in 1957, leaving behind his widow Rajrani and his nephews. Prior to his death, Gaurishankar had left a will dated 3rd January 1949, and a codicil dated 19th November 1952. According to the will, the property was devised between his three nephews and his wife Rajrani. The property given to Rajrani was not given to her absolutely, but as a limited estate and during her lifetime. It also provided that she could, if she wanted, sell this property to her nephews, who were the other legatees under the will and to none other. By the codicil made on the 19th November 1952, these provisions in the will were changed. Shyammohan, one of the nephews, incurred displeasure of Gaurishankar and was disinherited. Similarly, the right given to Rajrani to sell the property given to her, if so desired, in favour of her nephews, was also taken away. Lalitmohan and Rammohan died respectively in 1961 and 1964 leaving behind their sons and widows. Rajrani died in 1969. The present suit was commenced by the widow of Lalitmohan and the sons of Lalitmohan and Rammohan against defendants Nos. 1 to 3 who claimed to have purchased the property by two sale-deeds dated 20th December 1968 from Rajrani, and Maltirai the widow of Rammohan, and tenants-defendants in the properties. The suit was for a declaration that the sale-deeds dated 20th December 1968 were void and that the plaintiffs were entitled to enjoy and remain in possession of the property and to restrain defendants Nos. 1 to 3 by permanent injunction from interfering with their claim to possession and ownership.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the document Ex. 128 was not executed by Rajrani. The court also held that the defendant No. 1 is not protected by reason of provisions of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court further held that section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act has no application to this situation.
Issues: 1. Whether the will dated 3rd January 1949 was the last will of Gaurishankar? 2. Whether the suit was bad for multifariousness? 3. Whether the document Ex. 128 was executed by Rajrani? 4. Whether defendant No. 1 is protected by reason of provisions of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act? 5. Whether section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act has any application to this situation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Execution of a document requires an intention to bring it into existence. Mere signing of a document without the intention of bringing it into existence does not amount to execution. 2. Admission of signature on a document is not necessarily an admission of execution. Circumstances may negative such an inference. 3. For the protection under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transferee must take reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor has power to transfer and acts in good faith. 4. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act applies only to property possessed by a female Hindu immediately before the commencement of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgment

Tulpule J.-One Gaurishankar Shrivastava, who retired as a Director of the Veterinary Department in the former Central Provinces, possessed property house No. 750 in Khare Town, Dharampeth, Nagpur. The house consisted of the main building bearing Nos. 750/1 to 3 and the garage and out-houses in the said plot bearing No. 750/4 to 8. Gaurishankar had purchased a plot upon which he constructed this main building, out houses and the garage. The sale-deed was dated 23rd April 1938 by which he purchased this plot admeasuring 120 x 150 feet, nearly 20,000 sq. feet.

2. Gaurishankar had a brother by name Dayashankar. Family of Gaurishankar and Dayashankar appeared to be not in comfortable circumstances and had very little immovable property of their own. It was only after Gaurishankar entered Civil Service and rose to the post of a Director that he acquired the property in suit. Dayashankar apparently was maintained by Gaurishankar and did not do anything. He had 3 sons Lalitmohan, Rammohan and Shyammohan, who were looked upon almost as his sons by Gaurishankar.

3. Gaurishankar died on 28th October 1957 leaving behind his widow Rajrani and his nephews as aforesaid. Prior to his death, Gaurishankar, according to the plaintiffs, had left a will dated 3rd January 1949. Gauri-shankar also subsequently made a codicil by which certain provisions of the will were amended and altered. That was on 19th November 1952. According to the plaintiffs, by this will the property was devised by Gaurishankar between his 3 nephews and his wife Rajrani. The property, which was, how-ever, given to Rajrani, his wife, was not given to her absolutely, but as a limited estate and during her lifetime. It also provided that she could, if she wanted, sell this property to her nephews, who were the other legatees under the will and to none other. By the codicil made on the 19th November 1952 these provisions in the will were changed. Shyammohan, one of the nephews, apparently incurred displeasure of Gaurishankar and was disinherited. Similarly the right given to Rajrani to sell the property given to her, if so desired, in favour of her nephews, was also taken away. In other words, by the codicil her right in the property was limited to her lifetime only.

4. It appears that Lalitmohan and Rammohan as well as Shyam-mohan shifted from Nagpur. All the brothers seem to have migrated to Jabalpur, presumably on the re-organisation of the States and this area having merged in Bombay State. Lalitmohan and Rammohan died respectively on 12–12–1961 and 12–12–1964 leaving behind them their sons and widows. Admittedly, though Lalitmohan and Rammohan shifted to Jabalpur their sons continued to remain at Nagpur taking their education living with their grandmother Rajrani.

5. The present suit was commenced by the widow of Lalitmohan and the sons of Lalitmohan and Rammohan against 3 persons - defendants Nos. 1 to 3-who claimed to have purchased this property by two sale-deeds dated 20th December 1968 from Rajrani, and Maltirai the widow of Ram-mohan, and tenants-defendants in the properties. The suit was for a declaration that the sale-deeds dated 20th December 1968 were void and that the plaintiffs were entitled to enjoy and remain in possession of the property and to restrain defendants Nos. 1 to 3 by permanent injunction from interfering with their claim to possession and ownership.

6. The plaintiffs alleged that by reason of the will and testament of Gaurishankar dated 3–1-1949 as modified by the codicil dated 19–11–1952, Rajrani had no transferable or disposable interest in the property, and that she had only a limited interest to a part of the property in which she had a right to live and enjoy during her lifetime. Rest of the properties were given to Lalitmohan and Rammohan. Lalitmohan and Rammohan and there-after the sons and the family were living together along with Rajrani in the said house and enjoying the property. So far as Rajrani and others were concerned, they wer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document