Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors. v. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai
Background
The appellants' father, Chhotabhai Ashabhai Patel, had executed a registered gift deed in 1977 transferring certain property to the respondent (an unrelated person who had cared for him in his later years). After the father's death, his sons challenged the gift deed as fabricated, arguing the property was ancestral (inherited from their grandfather via a Will) and that their father had no right to give it away. The trial court and first appellate court ruled in the sons' favour, but the Gujarat High Court reversed this in second appeal, holding the property was self-acquired in the father's hands and the gift was valid.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view, relying on its earlier three-judge-bench ruling in C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar, which held that property a father receives from his own father by gift or will is self-acquired in his hands, not ancestral, unless the will itself shows an intention that it be ancestral. Since the sons never specifically denied execution of the gift deed (they alleged forgery/fabrication instead, which is a different legal ground), the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act meant the registered gift deed did not need an attesting witness to be proved, and the sons failed to produce any evidence (such as a signature comparison or forensic opinion) to support their forgery claim. The appeal was dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
Property that a person inherits from his father by gift or will is generally treated as his own self-acquired property, free to be given away as he wishes: it does not automatically become joint "ancestral" property that his own children have an inherent right to block or claim a share in.