Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1488
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Urmila Devi, w/o Bansi Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Jagmaniya Devi, W/o Late Ugan Mahto - Respondent
S.A. No. 542 of 2018
Decided on : 07-10-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Ram Kinkar, Advocate
Registered gift deeds must be supported by competent evidence if execution is disputed; failure to produce key witnesses or the original deed renders the instrument non-enforceable.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 123 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Dispute over validity of a registered gift deed - Court found lack of proof regarding execution; original deed not produced; essential witnesses not called - Gift deed held non-enforceable as plaintiff alleged it was forged. (Paras 34, 42, 46)
(B) Presumption of correctness for registered documents - An admitted registration does not eliminate the necessity of proof if execution is disputed - Non-production of witnesses warranted dismissal. (Paras 40, 46)
(C) Substantial Question of Law: Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in declaring the gift deed void ab initio?
Findings of Court:
Gift deed was found to be non-enforceable due to lack of evidence as required by law.
Issues: Legitimacy of claims regarding will and gift deed execution; question of proofs being satisfied in law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that a registered instrument’s validity must be supported by adequate evidence especially when its execution is contested.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties involved in property dispute (Para 1 , 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. court's observations on evidence and burden of proof (Para 7 , 10 , 18 , 24 , 33) |
| 3. arguments on date of death and gift deed validity (Para 12 , 16) |
| 4. gift deed execution requirements under law (Para 34 , 40 , 44) |
| 5. final decision of the court on appeal (Para 47 , 48 , 50) |
JUDGMENT :
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
This second appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 23.08.2018 (decree dated 05.09.2018) passed in Civil Appeal No.21 of 2012 by the learned District Judge VI, Garhwa (only to the extent of findings of the learned 1st appellate court wherein it has been held that the deed of gift is not enforceable). The 1st appellate court partly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 31.07.2012 (decree dated 14.08.2012) passed in Title Suit No.49 of 1999 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division IV) Garhwa.
2. The defendants are the appellants before this Court.
3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff Ugan Mahto against Urmila Devi and another defendant seeking a declaration of their right, title with respect to the suit property described in Schedule A. The suit was filed for the following reliefs:
“i) It be adjudicated and declared upon that the plaintiff has been coming in possession of the suit land along with house and trees standing thereon mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ of this plaint as exclusive owner thereof having perfect right and title after the death of Jagarnath Mahto as his/heir and successor and the deed no.2285 dated 6.10.99 executed in favour of the defendant no.01 is forged fabricated and void ab initio and result of fraud played by the defendants and defendant no.01 did not acquire any right, title or possession over any inch of suit land for any moment by virtue of the same.
ii) The defendant be restrained from disturbing peaceful cultivating possession of the plaintiff over suit lands by issuing injunction against them.
iii) Full cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.
iv) Any other relief or reliefs be awarded to the plaintiff for which he may be deemed to be entitled.”
4. Admittedly both parties, plaintiff as well as defendants claimed themselves as heirs of common ancestors and the genealogy as given in the plaint and written statement has been accepted by both the parties. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is that Jagarnath Mahto died on 04.05.1999 and subsequent to that plaintiff Ugan Mahto came over the possession of the property of Jagarnath Mahto and the registered gift deed dated 10.06.1999 executed by Jagarnath Mahto was forged and fabricated as it was never executed by Jagarnath Mahto. On the other hand, defendants claimed that Jagarnath died on 04.08.1999 and relied on the registered gift deed dated 10.06.1999 and also relied on another document, the Will.
5. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration:
“I. Is the suit as framed maintainable?
II. Has the plaintiff any valid cause of action for the suit?
III. Is the suit barred by the law of limitation, estoppel waiver and acquiescence?
IV. Is the suit barred by the section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?
V. Is the suit properly valued?
VI. Whether there was a partition by metes and bounds between Ugan Mahto and Sukan Mahto, if there was re-union of the family between them?
VII. Whether Jagarnath Mahto was separate from Ugan Mahto and Sukan and transferred his properties through a deed of gift and that deed of gift is valid?
VIII. Whether the defendant no.1 was in the family of Jagarnath since childhood as his daughter and served Jagarnath during his old age and defendant no.2 as his Ghar Damad exercising the exclusive and absolute right, title and possession over his entire properties?
IX. Is the plaintiff entitled to the relief claimed?
X. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs the plaintiffs is entitled?”
6. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The learned trial court inter alia evaluated the materials on recor
