Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. VS Prasad Vassudev Keni, Etc. Etc. ...
2020 4 Supreme 582 : In a sale deed, if the executor acknowledges that the document is not forged, this acknowledgment can be significant in determining whether the document constitutes a ''''false document'''' under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the judgment in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751, the execution of a sale deed by a person claiming ownership of property that is not theirs does not amount to making a ''''false document'''' under Section 464 IPC, unless there is an intention to cause it to be believed that the document was made or executed by or under the authority of another person. The court held that merely executing a document claiming ownership of property not belonging to the executor does not constitute forgery, as it does not fall under the first category of false documents, which requires the intent to deceive by impersonating another or claiming authority from another. Therefore, if the executor acknowledges the sale deed is not forged—meaning they did not falsely claim to be the owner or act under someone else’s authority—the document cannot be considered forged under IPC Sections 463 and 464, and thus cannot attract offences under Sections 467 and 471. This principle supports the permissibility of such an acknowledgment in legal proceedings.Checking relevance for Anil Rishi VS Gurbaksh Singh...
Checking relevance for Ramathal VS K. Rajamani (Dead) through LRs. ...
Checking relevance for Rama Shankar Lal VS State Of U. P. ...
Checking relevance for R. Nagender Yadav VS State of Telangana...
2023 1 Supreme 750 : In the context of a sale deed, if the executor (vendor) of the sale deed himself acknowledges that the sale deed is not forged, this constitutes a significant factual admission that undermines the claim of forgery. The court in the provided judgment noted that the appellant (defendant in the civil suit) maintained a clear stance that the sale deed dated 29.12.2010 was executed by the complainant (original vendor) voluntarily and with full consent, and that the complainant had attested his own signature. This admission by the executor (complainant) that he executed the sale deed voluntarily and acknowledged receipt of the entire sale consideration—specifically, that the amount was financed by AXIS Bank Ltd.—directly contradicts the claim of forgery. The court emphasized that the civil court is seized of the matter and must decide the validity of the sale deed on the basis of evidence, including handwriting expert opinion, and that the criminal prosecution should not proceed when the validity of the deed is already under civil adjudication. While no specific case law is cited in the document to directly support the proposition, the factual admission by the executor himself that he executed the deed and received the consideration serves as a strong evidentiary basis to counter allegations of forgery. The judgment implicitly supports the principle that a party''''s own admission of execution and receipt of consideration in a sale deed is a material factor in determining whether the deed is forged, especially when such admission is made in a civil proceeding where the matter is sub judice.Checking relevance for Placido Francisco Pinto (D) By Lrs VS Jose Francisco Pinto...
2021 6 Supreme 529 : In a sale deed, if the executor (or party) acknowledges that the document is not forged, such acknowledgment is binding and sufficient to uphold the validity of the document. The court held that the respondent admitted signing the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, and even though he claimed ignorance of its nature, this ''''feigned ignorance'''' does not amount to fraud. The presumption of correctness attaches to a registered sale deed executed in normal course of official duties, and the party who signed it is bound by the document. This principle is supported by the judgment in Bellachi, which reinforces that a party cannot later deny the authenticity of a document they signed, especially when they admit to signing it in the presence of the Sub-Registrar. Furthermore, under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, oral evidence cannot be used to contradict the terms of a registered document unless it is to prove fraud, illegality, or failure of consideration—none of which were established here. Thus, the executor''''s acknowledgment of signing the deed, even without full knowledge of its contents, is sufficient to validate the document and preclude claims of forgery.Checking relevance for Krishna Kishore Firm VS Govt. of A. P. ...
Checking relevance for Krisna Kant Kuswaha S/o Late Moti Mahto VS State of Jharkhand...
Checking relevance for Ram Pukar Rai, Son of Saryug Rai vs State Of Bihar...
2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 262 : In a sale deed, if the executor acknowledges that the sale deed is not forged, this acknowledgment is significant in determining the authenticity of the document. The court held that since the accused, Arun Uraon, executed the sale deed based on a genuine power of attorney and there was no allegation of impersonation or forgery of signatures, the sale deed was genuine and not forged. The court emphasized that the genuineness of the document must be assessed based on the facts, and where no forgery or cheating is proven, the dispute remains civil in nature. The court further stated that Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code do not apply when the sale deed is not forged and is executed under a valid power of attorney. This establishes that a party''''s acknowledgment of the sale deed''''s authenticity, supported by evidence of a genuine power of attorney, is sufficient to rebut allegations of forgery and prevent the application of penal provisions.Checking relevance for M. SUBRAMANI S/O LATE SHRI MUNIRAJU VS STATE OF KARNATAKA...
Checking relevance for NITINBHAI @ RAJU PUSHOTTAMBHAI PRAJAPATI VS STATE OF GUJARAT...
2021 0 Supreme(Guj) 1118 : In the context of a sale deed, if the executor (or the person who executed the deed) acknowledges that the sale deed is not forged, this acknowledgment can be a strong evidentiary basis to refute allegations of forgery. The judgment in the provided document explicitly supports this principle. It states that the sale deed dated 29.09.1993, which was executed by the father of the complainant (Somabhai Sakrabhai) through a power of attorney, was confirmed by the parties involved, including the heirs of Ishwarbhai and Ramanbhai, and that none of them raised any objection to the power of attorney or the execution of the deed. The document notes that the power of attorney was executed before the Executive Magistrate and remained in force until the death of Somabhai, and that he never disputed it during his lifetime. Furthermore, the court observed that the sale deed and the confirmation document were executed in the presence of all the vendors, and no reservation or objection was raised at the time. This demonstrates that the executor’s own conduct—continuing to act under the power of attorney and not challenging the documents—constitutes a clear acknowledgment that the documents are genuine. The court emphasized that the complainant, who was a minor at the time of the 1988 sale deed, could have challenged the sale deed upon attaining majority but failed to do so, which further supports the legitimacy of the documents. This aligns with the legal principle that a party’s conduct, including silence or inaction over a long period, can be treated as an acknowledgment of the validity of a document. The judgment also references the Supreme Court’s observation in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel (supra), which underscores that a handwriting expert’s opinion is not conclusive and that the court may form its own opinion under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the executor’s acknowledgment—supported by consistent conduct and absence of challenge—can be legally permissible and persuasive in proving that a sale deed is not forged.
