NDLI: Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Evidence Act Self-acquired property Nature of such property in the hands of the son 1872 s.68 Hindu Law bequeathed by the father in favour of the son
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	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/ 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.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1070
Petitioner	Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors.
Respondent	Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai
SCR	[2019] 13 S.C.R. 152
Judgement Date	2019-09-23
Case Number	7528

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai

Please Log-in to view this content

Radhakrishnadas Vs. Kaluram

S. M. Jakati & Another Vs. S. M Borkar & Others

Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel

Govindbhai Gordhanbhai Patel & Ors. Vs. Gulam Abbas Mulla Allibhai & Ors.

Gur Narain Das and Another Vs. Gur Tahal Das and Others

Patel Sureshbhai Jashbhai Vs. Patel Satabhai Mathurbhai

K. Laxmanan Vs. Thekkayil Padmini & Ors.

C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar Vs. C. A. Muruganatha Mudaliar and Another

V Alliammai Achi Vs. Nagappa Chettiar & Ors.

Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai

Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Radhakrishnadas Vs. Kaluram

S. M. Jakati & Another Vs. S. M Borkar & Others

Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel

Govindbhai Gordhanbhai Patel & Ors. Vs. Gulam Abbas Mulla Allibhai & Ors.

Gur Narain Das and Another Vs. Gur Tahal Das and Others

Patel Sureshbhai Jashbhai Vs. Patel Satabhai Mathurbhai

K. Laxmanan Vs. Thekkayil Padmini & Ors.

C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar Vs. C. A. Muruganatha Mudaliar and Another

V Alliammai Achi Vs. Nagappa Chettiar & Ors.

Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai