Supreme Court Upholds Gift Deed Validity in Property Dispute: Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors. vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai (23 September 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 23 September 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 938
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a gift deed be challenged if the donor’s sons claim the property is ancestral? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a property dispute case, examining the validity of a gift deed and the nature of ancestral property. The Court held that the property was self-acquired and the gift deed was valid. This judgment clarifies the legal position on the transfer of self-acquired property and the requirements for challenging a registered gift deed.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over property originally owned by Ashabhai Patel, the grandfather of the plaintiffs (appellants) and father of Chhotabhai Ashabhai Patel (the Donor). The Donor purportedly executed a gift deed on November 15, 1977, in favor of Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel (the Donee). After the Donor’s death on December 6, 2001, his sons challenged the gift deed, claiming the property was ancestral and the gift deed was fabricated. They sought a declaration that the Donee had no right to the property.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the property was ancestral and the gift deed was not valid. The First Appellate Court upheld this decision. However, the High Court of Gujarat reversed these decisions in a second appeal, stating that the property was not ancestral and that the execution of the gift deed was not specifically denied by the plaintiffs, thus not requiring attesting witnesses to be examined. The High Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: “Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested- If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.” This section requires attesting witnesses to be examined to prove the execution of a document, unless the document is registered and its execution is not specifically denied.
• Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section requires a gift deed to be attested by two witnesses.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Plaintiffs’) Arguments:

• The property was ancestral, having been purchased by their grandfather and passed down through inheritance. They claimed that the property was partitioned in 1964 between the Donor and his brothers, making it ancestral.
• The gift deed was fabricated, and the attesting witnesses were not related to or friends of the Donor.
• The execution of the gift deed was not valid as the witnesses at the time of registration were different from the attesting witnesses of the gift deed.
• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing findings of fact by the lower courts.

Respondent’s (Donee’s) Arguments:

• The property was self-acquired by the Donor, having been bequeathed to him by his father through a Will, and therefore, he was competent to gift it.
• The plaintiffs did not specifically deny the execution of the gift deed, thus, the Donee was not required to examine attesting witnesses.
• The High Court was correct in reversing the lower courts as their reasoning was flawed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the appellants have proved that the property in the hands of the Donor was ancestral property?
2. Whether the appellants have specifically denied the execution of the gift deed in terms of the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar & Anr. [AIR 1953 SC 495] (Supreme Court of India): This case established that a property bequeathed or gifted to a son by a Mitakshara father is treated as self-acquired property in the hands of the son, unless the Will specifies otherwise.
• Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad & Ors. [(2018) 7 SCC 646] (Supreme Court of India): This case held that self-acquired property of a grandfather devolves upon his son as ancestral property. The Court distinguished this case as it dealt with the status of property after partition, not testamentary succession.
• Jugmohan Das v. Sir Mangal Das [(1886) I.L.R. 10 Bom 528] (Bombay High Court): This case held that if a son takes property by devise, the property continues to be self-acquired in his hands.
• Parsotam v. Janki Bai [ILR 29 All 354] (Allahabad High Court): This case supported the view that property received through a will remains self-acquired.
• Amarnath v. Guran [AIR 1918 Lah 394] (Lahore High Court): This case also supported the view that property received through a will remains self-acquired.
• Pulavarthi Venkata Subba Rao & Ors. v. Valluri Jagannadha Rao (deceased) by his Heirs & LRs & Ors. [AIR 1967 SC 591] (Supreme Court of India): This case discussed the nature of property inherited under a will and whether it was ancestral or self-acquired.
• Rosammal Issetheenammal Fernandez (Dead) by LRs & Ors. v. Joosa Mariyan Fernandez & Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 189] (Supreme Court of India): This case clarified that if the execution of a gift deed is specifically denied, it must be proved by examining an attesting witness. This authority was distinguished as there was specific denial of execution.
• K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini & Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC 354] (Supreme Court of India): This case also held that a gift deed must be proved by examining an attesting witness if its execution is specifically denied. This authority was distinguished as there was specific denial of execution.
• Badat and Co. Bombay v. East India Trading Co. [AIR 1964 SC 538] (Supreme Court of India): This case stated that a written statement must specifically deal with each allegation of fact in the plaint.
• Dashrath Prasad Bajooram v. Lallosingh Sanmansingh & Anr. [AIR 1951 Nag 343] (Nagpur High Court): This case held that a general denial is not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
• Kannan Nambiar v. Narayani Amma & Ors. [1984 SCC OnLine Ker 174] (Kerala High Court): This case held that a specific denial of execution of a gift deed is an unambiguous and categorical statement that the donor did not execute the document.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar & Anr. [AIR 1953 SC 495]*: The Court relied on this case to establish that property received through a will is considered self-acquired unless the will specifies otherwise.
• Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad & Ors. [(2018) 7 SCC 646]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it dealt with partition, not testamentary succession.
• Jugmohan Das v. Sir Mangal Das [(1886) I.L.R. 10 Bom 528]*: The Court relied on this case, which held that property received through devise remains self-acquired.
• Dashrath Prasad Bajooram v. Lallosingh Sanmansingh & Anr. [AIR 1951 Nag 343]*: The Court relied on this case to support the view that a general denial is not sufficient for the purpose of Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
• Kannan Nambiar v. Narayani Amma & Ors. [1984 SCC OnLine Ker 174]*: The Court relied on this case to support the view that a specific denial of execution of a gift deed is an unambiguous and categorical statement that the donor did not execute the document.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors: the nature of the property as self-acquired, the lack of specific denial of the gift deed’s execution, and the failure of the plaintiffs to prove forgery. The Court emphasized the importance of specific denial in pleadings and the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to establish their claims.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the property was self-acquired as it was bequeathed to the Donor through a Will. The Court also noted that the plaintiffs did not specifically deny the execution of the gift deed but rather alleged forgery and fabrication. The Court held that such allegations do not constitute a specific denial as required by the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The Court also emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to prove the allegations of forgery, further weakening their case. The Court also noted that the Donee was taking care of the Donor for many years, while the plaintiffs were residing in the United States and failed to take care of their parents.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “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.”
• “The appellants went to trial on the basis of fabrication of gift deed. The appellants have admitted the execution of the gift deed but alleged the same to be forged or fabricated. However, the appellants have not been able to prove any forgery in the execution of the gift deed.”
• “The facts of the present case are akin to the facts which were before the Kerala High Court in Kannan Nambiar. The appellants have not denied the execution of the document but alleged forgery and fabrication. In the absence of any evidence of any forgery or fabrication and in the absence of specific denial of the execution of the gift deed in the manner held in Kannan Nambiar , the Donee was under no obligation to examine one of the attesting witnesses of the gift deed.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• A property received through a will from a father is considered self-acquired unless the will specifies otherwise.
• To challenge a registered gift deed, the execution must be specifically denied in the pleadings. Allegations of forgery or fabrication are not sufficient.
• If the execution of a registered gift deed is not specifically denied, it is not necessary to examine the attesting witnesses to prove the gift deed.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a property received through a will from a father is considered self-acquired unless the will specifies otherwise, and that a specific denial of execution is required to challenge a registered gift deed. This judgment reinforces the principles established in C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar and clarifies the requirements for challenging registered gift deeds under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court affirmed that the property was self-acquired and that the gift deed was valid. This judgment clarifies the legal position on the transfer of self-acquired property and the requirements for challenging a registered gift deed, emphasizing the need for specific denials in pleadings.