GOVINDBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL & ORS. versus PATEL RAMANBHAI MATHURBHAI

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 23-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
GOVINDBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL & ORS.
v.
PATEL RAMANBHAI MATHURBHAI
(Civil Appeal No. 7528 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Hindu Law – Self-acquired property bequeathed by the father
in favour of the son – Nature of such property in the hands of the
son – Appellants-plaintiffs are sons of the Donor (since deceased)
– During his life time, the Donor purportedly executed gift deed in
favour of the defendant-donee – Trial Court recorded finding that
the property was ancestral – Upheld by the First Appellate Court –
High Court held that the property was not ancestral in the hands of
the Donor and hence, he was competent to execute the gift deed –
On appeal, held: Admittedly, the grandfather of the appellants
purchased the property, and such self-acquired property came to
be bequeathed by him to the Donor through Will – Thus, the
grandfather of the appellant was competent to execute the Will in
favour of any person and since the beneficiary of the Will was his
son (the Donor) thus, in the absence of any intention in the Will,
beneficiary would acquire the property as self-acquired property –
Appellants stated in the cross-examination that there was family
partition in 1964 between the Donor and his two brothers – A
statement in the cross-examination that there was partition between
the Donor and his two brothers will not make the property ancestral
in the hands of the Donor – Burden of proof that the property was
ancestral was on the plaintiffs (appellants) alone – It was for them
to prove that the Will of their grandfather intended to convey the
property for the benefit of the family so as to be treated as ancestral
property – In the absence of any such averment or proof, the property
in the hands of Donor has to be treated as self-acquired – Once the
property in the hands of Donor is held to be self-acquired, he is
competent to deal with it in manner he considers proper including
by executing gift deed in favour of a stranger to the family – Further,
appellants admitted the execution of the gift deed but alleged it to
be forged/fabricated – In the absence of any evidence of forgery/
152
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 152
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
153
fabrication and specific denial of the execution of the gift deed, the
Donee was under no obligation to examine one of the attesting
witnesses of the gift deed – As per evidence on record, the Donee
was taking care of the Donor for many years – Appellants were
residing in the United States but failed to take care of their parents
– Therefore, the father of the appellants executed gift deed in favour
of a person who stood by him – No error in the findings recorded
by the High Court– Transfer of Property Act, 1882– s.123 – Indian
Succession Act, 1925 – s.63 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.68 – Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 and Or. VI, r.4.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.68 – Appellants-plaintiffs are sons of
the Donor (since deceased) – During his life time, the Donor
purportedly executed gift deed in favour of the defendant-donee –
Trial Court recorded finding that the property was ancestral –
Upheld by the First Appellate Court – High Court held that the
property was not ancestral in the hands of the Donor and hence,
he was competent to execute the gift deed – Held: s.68 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 1908 Act,
unless the execution is specifically denied – In the present case, the
entire reading of the plaint does not show that there was any specific
denial of execution of the gift deed – Thus, in view of the absence
of specific denial of the execution of the gift deed, the Donee was
under no obligation to examine one of the attesting witnesses of the
gift deed– Indian Registration Act, 1908.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1.1 PW-1 has stated, vide Exhibit 34, that the
property in question was purchased by his grandfather and after
death of his grandfather, property was owned by the Donor
according to the inheritance since 1952-1953. The appellants
stated in the cross-examination that there was family partition in
the year 1964 between the Donor and his two brothers. It is,
thus, sought to be argued that since the property was partitioned
in 1964, therefore, the Donor has acq

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.