Analysis of Forged Gift Deeds in Indian Law

Forged Gift Deeds in Indian Law: Validity, Proof, and Legal Recourse

Introduction

A gift, under Indian law, represents a voluntary transfer of ownership of property without consideration. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, lays down the essential conditions for a valid gift, including donative intent, acceptance by the donee, and, for immovable property, a registered instrument signed by the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. However, the sanctity of such transfers is often challenged by allegations of forgery, where the gift deed itself is purported to be a fabricated document, not genuinely executed by the donor. A forged gift deed, being a product of fraud, raises fundamental questions regarding its legal validity, the methods of proving such forgery, and the remedies available to the aggrieved parties. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal landscape surrounding forged gift deeds in India, drawing upon statutory provisions and judicial precedents to elucidate the complexities involved.

Legal Framework Governing Gift Deeds in India

The primary statutes governing gift deeds in India are the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Registration Act, 1908.

The Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA) defines a "gift" as the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.

Section 123 of the TPA specifies the mode of effecting a gift. For immovable property, a gift must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. For movable property, a gift may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery. The Orissa High Court in Santilata Nayak (Since Dead) And After Her, Her Legal Representatives v. Jawahar High School & Another S (Orissa High Court, 2016) reiterated these essentials, emphasizing that acceptance is a crucial element and that for immovable property, the transfer must be by a registered instrument attested by at least two witnesses.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The proof of execution of a gift deed, particularly when its genuineness is disputed, is governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 68 of the Act is paramount, stipulating that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness 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. The Supreme Court in K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini And Others (2009 SCC 1 354) underscored the strict compliance required with Section 68 for proving deeds of will and gift, holding that failure to examine attesting witnesses can render the deeds legally ineffective.

Other relevant provisions include Section 45 (opinions of experts, including handwriting experts), Section 47 (opinion as to handwriting, when relevant), Section 67 (proof of signature and handwriting), and Section 73 (comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved).

The Registration Act, 1908

Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, mandates compulsory registration for gift deeds relating to immovable property. While registration lends a presumption of genuineness and due execution to a document (Rajdeo Singh v. Rajdeo Singh, Patna High Court, 2012), this presumption is rebuttable. Registration does not cure the defect of forgery. If the execution of the deed itself is fraudulent and not by the person purported to be the donor, the registration based on such a forged document is of no legal consequence in establishing its validity.

The Concept of Forgery in Relation to Gift Deeds

Forgery, as defined under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), involves making a false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. A gift deed is forged if, for instance, the signature of the donor is fabricated, or if an imposter executes the document claiming to be the donor (Mangla Prasad Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others, Allahabad High Court, 2012; Seeniyammal .C v. Jana Small Finance Bank, Madras High Court, 2024).

A forged gift deed is considered void ab initio, meaning it has no legal effect from its inception. It does not transfer any title to the purported donee. This distinction between void and voidable documents is crucial. The Supreme Court in Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh And Others (1990 SUPP SCC 1 216), while dealing with a sale deed where the plaintiff (an illiterate person) never intended to sign what she did sign, drew upon the distinction made in Gorakh Nath Dube that a claim that a transaction was void could be adjudicated by consolidation courts, whereas a voidable document needed to be set aside by a competent civil court. A forged document, being void, is a nullity in the eyes of the law. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Prem Singh And Others v. Birbal And Others (2006 SCC 5 353) discussed the void versus voidable distinction in the context of the Limitation Act, noting that Article 59 of the Limitation Act applies to voidable instruments, and a suit to set aside such an instrument must be filed within three years from when the facts entitling cancellation become known. However, if a document is void *ab initio*, such as due to forgery, it can be argued that it does not need to be formally "set aside" in the same manner, and a suit for declaration of its nullity may have different limitation considerations or may be pleaded as a defence whenever rights are asserted under it.

Proving Forgery of a Gift Deed

The burden of proving that a gift deed is forged generally lies on the party who alleges it. As observed by the Supreme Court in Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel And Others (S) v. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai (S) (2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1245), if plaintiffs allege forgery of their father's signature on a gift deed, the burden is on them to establish and prove it by cogent evidence; a mere assertion or doubt is insufficient.

Role of Attesting Witnesses

As mandated by Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the examination of at least one attesting witness is crucial for proving the execution of a gift deed, especially when its validity is specifically denied (K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini And Others, 2009 SCC 1 354; Santilata Nayak v. Jawahar High School, Orissa High Court, 2016). Failure to do so can be fatal to the claim of the propounder of the gift deed.

Expert Evidence

The opinion of handwriting experts under Section 45 of the Evidence Act can be vital in cases of alleged signature forgery. Courts often rely on such expert testimony, though it is not the sole determinant and is typically considered alongside other evidence (SK.AZIMUR RAHMAN & ANR v. BIBISAKILA KHATOON & ORS, Patna High Court, 2009). Section 47 of the Evidence Act also allows for the opinion of a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom a document is supposed to be written or signed (MD. SATTAR ALI @ SATTAR KHAN and ORS. v. MAZIRAN NESSA, Gauhati High Court, 2024).

Circumstantial Evidence and Suspicious Circumstances

Courts meticulously examine the circumstances surrounding the execution of a gift deed when forgery is alleged. Several factors can raise suspicion:

  • Condition of the Donor: The advanced age, illiteracy, illness, or mental and physical infirmity of the donor at the time of the alleged execution can be a significant factor (Keshav And Others (S) v. Gian Chand And Another (S), Supreme Court Of India, 2022). In Keshav, the Supreme Court noted that Hardei was an old illiterate lady dependent on her nephew Keshav, and there was no forthcoming reason why she would execute a gift deed in her lifetime in favour of the plaintiffs when the land was her source of income and comfort.
  • Nature of Disposition: An unnatural disposition of property, such as disinheriting close heirs without apparent reason, can be a suspicious circumstance.
  • Lack of Independent Advice: If the donor, especially if vulnerable, did not have access to independent legal advice before executing the deed.
  • Participation of Beneficiary: Active involvement of the beneficiary in the execution of the gift deed can also raise suspicion.
  • Inconsistencies in the Deed: Blanks left in the deed, hasty registration, or incorrect details can point towards forgery or fraudulent execution (Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai v. Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel And Others, Gujarat High Court, 2018; Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel And Others (S) v. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai (S), Supreme Court Of India, 2019). In these cases, it was noted that details of a will were kept blank in the gift deed, and witnesses were unrelated to the deceased donor.
  • Relationship of Witnesses: The lack of any known relationship or friendship between the attesting witnesses and the donor can be a suspicious circumstance (Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel And Others (S) v. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai (S), 2019).
  • Signature Discrepancies: Obvious dissimilarities between the disputed signature on the gift deed and the admitted signatures of the donor are strong indicators of forgery (Lalita Devi v. Bimla Devi, Patna High Court, 2014, where the plaintiff's signature was compared with admitted signatures on the plaint and Vakalatnama, revealing remarkable dissimilarity).
  • Absence of Valid Reason for Gift: The lack of a plausible reason for the donor to make the gift, especially if it deprives them of their means of livelihood, can be considered (Keshav And Others (S) v. Gian Chand And Another (S), 2022).
  • Conduct of Parties: The subsequent conduct of the parties, such as continued possession by the donor or lack of mutation in revenue records in the donee's name, can also be relevant, although the intention to transfer title can also be shown by expressions in the deed itself, such as the donee being responsible for taxes and the handing over of title documents (V. Sreeramachandra Avadhani (Dead) By Legal Representatives v. Shaik Abdul Rahim And Another, Supreme Court Of India, 2014).

In Mst Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan And Others (1960 AIR SC 335), the Supreme Court, while dealing with a fraudulent partition scheme, meticulously examined various deeds and the conduct of family members to uncover an integrated scheme of fraud. Similar scrutiny is applied to alleged forged gift deeds.

Consequences and Remedies Against Forged Gift Deeds

A forged gift deed, being void, confers no title upon the purported donee. The true owner retains title to the property. Aggrieved parties have both civil and criminal remedies.

Civil Remedies

  • Suit for Declaration: A suit can be filed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for a declaration that the gift deed is forged, null, and void, and not binding on the plaintiff.
  • Suit for Cancellation: Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, allows for the cancellation of a written instrument if it is void or voidable against a person, and they have reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding, may cause them serious injury.
  • Suit for Possession: If the plaintiff has been dispossessed based on the forged gift deed, a suit for recovery of possession can be filed.
  • Injunction: A suit for permanent injunction can be filed to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession or from alienating the property based on the forged deed.

Regarding limitation, as discussed in Prem Singh And Others v. Birbal And Others (2006 SCC 5 353), Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes a period of three years for a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument, from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled first become known to him. However, if a document is void *ab initio* (as a forged deed is), it is often argued that it does not need to be "set aside" and that the limitation under Article 59 may not apply, or that a suit for declaration (Article 58) or possession (based on title, 12 years) would be governed by their respective limitation periods. The specific facts and the nature of the relief sought are determinative.

Criminal Remedies

Parties aggrieved by a forged gift deed can initiate criminal proceedings by filing a First Information Report (FIR) or a private complaint before a Magistrate. Relevant offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, include:

  • Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
  • Section 465: Punishment for forgery.
  • Section 467: Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. (A gift deed can be considered a valuable security).
  • Section 468: Forgery for purpose of cheating.
  • Section 471: Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.

Several of the provided reference materials involve criminal complaints arising from forged gift deeds (Mangla Prasad Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others, 2012; Harendra Mahto v. State Of Bihar, 2012; Ashimanada Maity v. State Of West Bengal And Others, 2018; Arunender Pandey And 4 Others v. State Of Up And 3 Others, 2024). The Calcutta High Court in Ashimanada Maity noted that a CID investigation prima facie indicated forgery of the petitioner's handwriting on a purported gift deed. Civil and criminal proceedings can proceed concurrently.

Effect on Subsequent Transactions

Since a forged gift deed is void and conveys no title, any subsequent transactions based on such a deed (e.g., a sale or mortgage by the purported donee) are also generally invalid against the true owner. This was illustrated in Seeniyammal .C v. Jana Small Finance Bank (Madras High Court, 2024), where a loan was availed from a bank based on a gift deed allegedly forged by the petitioner's son; the bank's subsequent SARFAESI action was challenged.

Judicial Scrutiny of Alleged Forged Gift Deeds: Analysis of Case Law

Indian courts adopt a cautious and meticulous approach when adjudicating cases involving allegations of forged gift deeds. The judiciary emphasizes the need for strict proof of execution as per the Evidence Act and carefully weighs the evidence, including witness testimony, expert opinions, and circumstantial factors.

The principle that a registered document carries a presumption of validity is well-established, but this presumption is rebuttable, and the onus to rebut it lies on the person challenging the document (Rajdeo Singh v. Rajdeo Singh, Patna High Court, 2012). However, this presumption does not extend to validating a document that is fundamentally void due to forgery.

In Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh And Others (1990), the Supreme Court's discussion on void versus voidable documents highlights that a document executed without the true intent or knowledge of the executant, akin to forgery by misrepresentation of the character of the document, can be considered void. This has implications for the jurisdiction of courts and the remedies available.

The critical importance of Section 68 of the Evidence Act in proving gift deeds has been consistently upheld, as seen in K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini And Others (2008) and Santilata Nayak v. Jawahar High School (2016). The failure to examine attesting witnesses when the execution is denied often leads to the deed being held as not proved.

Cases like Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel And Others (S) v. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai (S) (2019) and Keshav And Others (S) v. Gian Chand And Another (S) (2022) demonstrate the courts' willingness to look beyond mere execution and delve into suspicious circumstances surrounding the gift, such as the donor's vulnerability, lack of independent advice, unnatural disposition, and inconsistencies within the document itself. In Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai v. Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel And Others (Gujarat High Court, 2018), the court noted that details of a will were left blank, and the gift deed was made hastily, supporting the plaintiffs' claim of forgery.

The judgment in Mst. Noor Jahan Begum v. Muftkhar Dad Khan And Others (Allahabad High Court, 1969) touched upon the acceptance and delivery of possession in a gift, which are essential for a valid gift. A forged gift would inherently lack genuine acceptance by a non-consenting donor and valid delivery of possession stemming from such a void transaction.

The interplay between civil and criminal proceedings is also evident. While civil courts determine the validity of the title and the deed, criminal courts address the culpability for the act of forgery and related offences (Mangla Prasad Singh, 2012; Harendra Mahto, 2012; Ashimanada Maity, 2018; Arunender Pandey, 2024). The findings in one proceeding can sometimes be relevant, though not always binding, in the other.

Conclusion

Forged gift deeds pose a significant threat to property rights and the integrity of legal transactions in India. The law provides a framework for challenging such deeds, emphasizing that a document vitiated by forgery is void ab initio and confers no title. The burden of proving forgery lies on the allegator, who must adduce cogent evidence, often involving the examination of attesting witnesses, expert opinions on handwriting, and highlighting suspicious circumstances surrounding the transaction.

Indian courts play a crucial role in safeguarding against fraudulent claims by meticulously scrutinizing the evidence and applying the established principles of law. Both civil remedies, such as declaration, cancellation, and recovery of possession, and criminal actions under the Indian Penal Code are available to aggrieved parties. The consistent judicial stance underscores the necessity for genuine donative intent, proper execution and attestation as per law, and transparency in the creation of gift deeds, thereby protecting the rights of true owners against fraudulent usurpation of property through forged instruments.