2019 (9) TMI 1681 - SC - Indian Laws

Fabricated gift deed - suit properties are ancestral properties or not - right to execute the gift deed - right title or interest over the property - right to file the present suit - whether the Appellants have proved that the property in the hands of Donor was ancestral property? - HELD THAT - This Court further held that on reading of the Will as a whole the conclusion becomes clear that the testator intended the legatees to take the properties in absolute rights as their own self-acquired property without being fettered in any way by the rights of their sons and grandsons. In other words he did not intend that the property should be taken by the sons as ancestral property. Consequently the appeal was allowed and the suit for partition by the son against his father was dismissed. In view of the undisputed fact that Ashabhai Patel purchased the property therefore he was competent to execute the Will in favour of any person. Since the beneficiary of the Will was his son and in the absence of any intention in the Will beneficiary would acquire the property as self-acquired property in terms of C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar case. The burden of proof that the property was ancestral was on the Plaintiffs alone - Once the property in the hands of Donor is held to be self-acquired property he was competent to deal with his property in such a manner he considers as proper including by executing a gift deed in favour of a stranger to the family. Whether the Appellants have specifically denied the execution of the gift deed in terms of proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act to make it mandatory for the Defendant to examine one of the attesting witnesses to prove the Gift deed in his favour? - HELD THAT - A gift deed is required to be compulsorily attested in terms of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. Similar is the provision in respect of execution of a Will which is required to be attested in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act 1925. Section 68 of the Evidence Act makes it mandatory to examine one of the attesting witnesses for the purpose of proving of the execution of Will but such limitation is not applicable in respect of proof of execution of any document which has been registered in accordance with provisions of the Indian Registration Act 1908 unless the execution is specifically denied. The High Court held that the Appellants have not led any evidence that signature of their father on the gift deed was forged as neither the specimen signature nor writings of their father for the purpose of comparing the disputed signature on the gift deed have been attempted. There is no report of an expert in respect of signatures of the Donor on the gift deed nor any request was made for sending the document to the Forensic Science Laboratory. There are no error in the judgment of the High Court which may warrant interference in the present appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the disputed gift deed is fabricated?
2. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are ancestral properties and late Chhotabhai Ashabhai had no right to execute the gift deed?
3. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the Defendant has no right, title, or interest over the said property?
4. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
5. Whether the Defendant proves that the Plaintiffs have no right to file the present suit?
6. What order and decree?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Fabrication of the Gift Deed:
The Plaintiffs alleged that the gift deed executed by the Donor was fabricated. They contended that the Donor was influenced by the Defendant and that the attesting witnesses had no relation with the Donor. The High Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to prove any forgery or fabrication. The Plaintiffs did not produce any expert evidence or request for forensic examination of the signatures. The High Court concluded that mere allegations without substantive proof could not establish forgery.

2. Ancestral Property:
The Plaintiffs argued that the suit properties were ancestral and thus the Donor had no right to execute the gift deed. The High Court held that the property was self-acquired by the Donor's father and devolved upon the Donor through a Will. According to Hindu Law, as interpreted by the Court, self-acquired property devolves upon the sons in their individual capacity and not as coparcenary property. Thus, the Donor was competent to execute the gift deed as the property was not ancestral.

3. Defendant's Right, Title, or Interest:
The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendant had no right, title, or interest in the property. The High Court, however, found that the Defendant was taking care of the Donor, and the gift deed was validly executed in his favor. The Court held that the Plaintiffs could not succeed based on the weaknesses in the Defendant's case but had to prove their own case.

4. Relief Entitlement:
The Plaintiffs sought relief on the grounds that the gift deed was invalid. The High Court dismissed this claim, stating that the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the property was ancestral or that the gift deed was fabricated. The Court emphasized that the Plaintiffs did not specifically deny the execution of the gift deed, which was a registered document.

5. Plaintiffs' Right to File Suit:
The Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs had no right to file the suit. The High Court did not find merit in this argument since the Plaintiffs were the sons of the Donor and had a legitimate interest in the property. However, their claims were dismissed on other grounds.

6. Order and Decree:
The High Court set aside the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. It held that the Donor had the right to execute the gift deed as the property was self-acquired and not ancestral. The Plaintiffs failed to prove forgery or specific denial of the gift deed's execution. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the gift deed in favor of the Defendant.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the Plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to prove forgery or that the property was ancestral. The Donor was deemed competent to execute the gift deed, and the Plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed.