Ram Ekbal Singh vs Smt. Deopari Devi
2026 Latest Caselaw 13 Patna

Patna High Court

Ram Ekbal Singh vs Smt. Deopari Devi on 6 January, 2026

Author: Anshuman

Bench: Anshuman

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                          SECOND APPEAL No.89 of 1989
     ======================================================
     Sri Bindeshwar Prasad Singh Son of Late Ram Ekbal Singh, Resident of
     Village - Nawadiha, P.O. Saidpur, P.S. Sonapur, District- Saran.

                                          ... ... Defendant-Appellant-Appellant

                                      Versus

1.   Smt. Deopari Devi D/o late Shri Abhay Narayan Singh, Wife of Shri
     Raghunath Singh, Resident of Village Masarh, Police Station Udant Nagar,
     District Shahabad now Bhojpur.
2.   Smt. Rampari Devi D/o late Abhay Narain Singh, Wife of Shri Brahmdeo
     Singh, Resident of Village Bhareshra, Police Station Bichala, Jagdishpur,
     District Shahabad now Bhojpur.
                                     .......Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents
3.   Sri Akhleshwar Prasad Singh Son of Late Ram Ekbal Singh, Resident of
     Mohalla Bartan, P.O. Dhanbad District- Dhanbad.
4.   Shanti Singh Wife of Sri Gangadhar Singh, D/o Late Ram Ekbal Singh,
     Resident of Mohalla Kazipur, P.O. Bankipur, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District-
     Patna.
5.   Smt. Kanti Singh Wife of Sheo Narayan Singh, D/o late Ram Ekbal Singh,
     Resident of Mohalla L.I.C. Colony, P.O. Chitragupta Nagar, P.S.
     Kankarbagh, District- Patna.

              ... ... Heirs of Defendant-Heirs of Appellant--Heirs of Appellant
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Appellant/s    :    Mr. Jyotindra Pratap Singh, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :    Mr. Girijanand Prasad, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
     ORAL JUDGMENT
     Date : 06-01-2026

     Suit Valued at         :    Rs.6000/-
     Appeal Value at        :    Rs.6000/-


                        The present second appeal has been filed against

      the judgment and decree passed and prepared on 17.08.1988 and

      02.09.1988

respectively, by 2nd Additional District Judge, Saran

at Chapra in Title Appeal No.165 of 1981/16 of 1987, affirming Patna High Court SA No.89 of 1989 dt. 06-01-2026

the judgment and decree dated 14.08.1981, passed by the 6 th

Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Saran in Title Suit No.69 of

1976/61 of 1981.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the

concurrent judgment and decree passed by the original Court

and the appellate Court. The sole appellant, who preferred the

present memorandum of appeal, died on 17.09.1997 leaving

behind his four heirs and legal representatives. His heirs and

legal representatives had been substituted. One of his heir and

legal representative has been added as appellant in the present

appeal, but his other heirs and legal representatives have been

permitted to add as respondent Nos.3 to 5 vide order dated

20.05.1998. Appeal notice was validly served upon the

respondents and then the present appeal has been fixed under

the heading for final hearing, before Hon'ble Bench.

Subsequently, vide order dated 01.07.2024, this second appeal

has been fixed for ex parte hearing under the provisions of

Order 41 Rule 17(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Learned Counsel has pleased to argue this matter and also filed

written argument on the substantial question of law framed.

3. Counsel for the appellant submits that the

original plaintiffs (present respondent Nos.1 & 2) filed a suit for Patna High Court SA No.89 of 1989 dt. 06-01-2026

declaration that the deed of gift dated 21.09.1972, Exhibit-B,

executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant was

declared null and void, inoperative and not binding upon the

plaintiff and further prayer has been made for cancellation and

setting aside the alleged deed dated 21.09.1972.

4. The case of plaintiffs-respondents-respondents

Nos.1 and 2, in brief, is that the plaintiff Masomat Mahajan

Kunwar's husband Abhay Narayan Singh died on 13.09.1972

leaving behind his widow Masomat Mahajan Kunwar and two

daughters as his only heirs and legal representatives, who

inherited and came into possession of the entire property of

Abhay Narayan Singh including the residential house, which is

the subject matter of the present dispute, i.e., impugned deed of

gift dated 21.09.1972, in which they were living since life time

of Abhay Narayan Singh. It has been further contended that

defendant Ram Ekbal Singh being the neighbour started

pretending to be a real sympathizer and well wisher suggested

them to get their names mutated in respect of the property

inherited by them in order to avoid probable grabbing of their

property by co-sharer/Pattidar of Abhay Narayan Singh. The

further case is that Masomat Mahajan Kunwar was simply an

illeterate and Pardanasi lady, upon offered to help them in this Patna High Court SA No.89 of 1989 dt. 06-01-2026

regard, the defendant-appellant-appellant Ram Ekbal Singh

took LTI of the plaintiff as well as obtained signatures of her

daughters with short text at his dictation on several stamp blank

papers on false pretext that those papers would be used for

mutation of their name in the revenue records of the State. The

said defendant Ram Eqbal Singh just after two days of Shradh

Ceremony approached Masomat Mahajan Kunwar and

represented to her that the Block Development Officer had gone

there for conducting an enquiry in connection with mutation

case. He again took the LTI of Mahajan Kunwar and signature

of her daughters on certain papers and subsequently used those

papers, fraudulently obtained deed of gift executed by them in

his favour in respect of their house. When the plaintiffs-

respondent-respondent received information in this regard, they

obtained certified copy of alleged gift deed dated 20.09.1972 on

17.04.1975 and found that false recitals were made in the deed

and the identifier and witnesses all are strangers and not known

to them. The documents of deed were never read over and

explained to the plaintiffs nor did they executed the same and

the recitals made in the deed were absolutely false and wrong.

As a matter of fact defendant/ Ram Ekbal Singh was not in any

manner related to Abhay Narayan Singh (husband of Masomat Patna High Court SA No.89 of 1989 dt. 06-01-2026

Mahajan Kunwar) nor did he ever serve Abhay Narayan Singh

nor did he perform the Shradh of Abhay Narayan Singh and

neither Masomat Mahajan Kunwar nor her daughters did any

advise for execution of deed of gift in favour of the defendant.

There have been neither offer and acceptance nor possession of

the house was handed over by the Masomat Mahajan Kunwar to

Ram Ekbar Singh.

5. The defendant came with the case in the suit

that the deed of gift (Ext-B) was perfectly genuine and it is

binding on the plaintiffs. It has been alleged that Ram Ekbal

Singh was nephew of Abhay Narayan Singh with whom he had

great love and affection. He was rendered the services to Abhay

Narayan Singh, spent huge amount of money and under such

circumstances out of love and affection Masomat Mahajan

Kunwar and her daughter executed deed of gift in respect of

small Khaparpos house after fully understanding the intrinsic

and implication of execution of such deed. Defendant-

appellant-appellant contended that the document was executed

and registered in accordance with the provisions of law. It was

read-over and explained to the plaintiff, who executed the same

after understanding fully well the contents thereof. The

identifier, the subscriber and the attesting witnesses were well Patna High Court SA No.89 of 1989 dt. 06-01-2026

known to the plaintiff and no deception or fraud was practiced.

There was proper offer and acceptance for the execution of deed

of gift which was properly executed and registered at the

residence of the plaintiffs. It has also contended that Abhay

Narayan Singh himself intended to gift certain property to the

defendant and plaintiff had also advised him to executed some

deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff. It has also been contended

that after the execution of the deed of gift, possession over the

house was delivered to the defendant Ram Ekbal Singh and the

plaintiff Masomat Mahajan Kunwar could not be said to be in

legal occupation of the disputed house and she was living

therein with the permission of the defendant.

6. The said title suit has been filed by plaintiffs-

respondents-respondents in the year 1976 and finally decided

on 14th August, 1981 in Title Suit No.69 of 1976/61 of 1981.

The Trial Court has framed three issues. The most relevant

issue is issue No.III. i.e., Is the deed of gift in question

fraudulent, null and void, inoperative and not binding on the

plaintiffs and liable to be cancelled and set aside?

7. The said issue No.III was decided by the Trial

Court in para-8 onward and finally reached on conclusion that:

under the facts, circumstances and evidence discussed above Patna High Court SA No.89 of 1989 dt. 06-01-2026

give rise to the inevitable and irresistible conclusion that the

defendant practiced fraud on the plaintiffs and inducing

misrepresentation to them, they took their thumb impression and

signature on stamped blank papers on false pretext. That they

were to be used for mutation of their names and surreptitiously

and fraudulently the defendant by bringing the ascribe. The

identifier and the witnesses in collusion converted these papers,

into the deed of gift and got the same executed on behalf of the

plaintiffs, in his favour which was in respect of the only

residential house of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs never

executed the deed knowing and understanding the contents

thereof and that the registration of the document too was not

legal and valid. And the deed of gift was also not completed on

account of absence of ingredients of gift viz. offer and

acceptance and delivery of possession. Obviously the deed of

gift is fraudulent, null and void inoperative and not binding on

the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs must be held competent and justified

in impugning and repudiating the deed in question.

8. During discussion, the Trial Court has

discussed Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,

which deals transfer how effected and further discussed about

the ingredients that for the purpose of making a gift of Patna High Court SA No.89 of 1989 dt. 06-01-2026

immovable property, transfer must be effected by a registered

document signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at

least two witnesses. It has been discussed that in the present

suit out of two attesting witnesses, one witness has been acted as

identifier. Thereafter, there is only one witness as the registering

officer cannot be the attesting witness. Since one person Yasoda

Nand Mishra has acted as identifier and he cannot be taken into

consideration as witness and other person is the Registrar. The

suit was allowed and decreed in favour of plaintiffs-

respondents-respondents. Thereafter, the original defendant

Ram Ekbal Singh preferred title appeal, which was numbered as

Title Appeal No.165 of 1991/16 of 1987. The appellate Court

has discussed in detail about Ext-B, which is the impugned deed

of gift dated 21.07.1972 allegedly executed by Mahazan

Kunwar, Deopari Devi and Ram Pari Devi to Ram Ekbal Singh

for suit land. During discussion the appellate Court stated that

"the stamp is purchased on 19.09.1972 by Suraj Narayan Singh

with alleged claim of authority Mahajan Kunwar. The document

is ascribed by Sakaldeep Prasad on 21.09.1972. The document

bears thumb impression purporting to be of Mahajan Kunwar as

endorsed by alleged Yasodanand Mishra on 21.09.1972. The

document also purports to bear thumb impression and Patna High Court SA No.89 of 1989 dt. 06-01-2026

signatures of Rampari Devi and Deopari Devi, their purported

endorsement on first page includes recital "Bakshish Nama

Likha To Sahi Kul Majbun Padkar Aur Padhbakar Samajh

Liya" .

Both endorsements, namely, alleged letters of

Rampari Devi and Deopari Devi have same recital and bears

signature besides thumb impression dated 20.09.1972. The

other pages do not bear such recital. The first page is not

attested by any witness. The second page has alleged attestation

by Yasodanand Mishra and by Suraj Narayan Prasad. The third

page and fourth page do not bear any attestation. The fifth page,

which is last page, bears endorsement of ascribe of Sakaldeo

Prasad. Thus, the document purports to be ascribed, executed

and attested on 21.07.1972 on three stamp papers and two blank

papers purported to be purchased on 19.09.1972 by Suraj

Narayan Singh and this bears thumb impression dated

29.09.1972 allegedly of plaintiff Mahajan Kunwar and Deopari

on back of first page endorsed by alleged Yasodanand Mishra

and this document appears to bear signature of Ram Ekbal

Singh dated 28.09.1972 along with one thumb impression. The

back of second page bears alleged signature and thumb

impression of Ram Pari on 29.09.1972 and also signature and Patna High Court SA No.89 of 1989 dt. 06-01-2026

thumb impression of Yasodanand Mishra on 29.09.1972. It also

appears from the endorsement in reading on back of first page

that the registration authority visited the resident of Mahajan

Kunwar, Deopari and Rampari in village Nawadih. This

endorsement in red ink is in 14th line on back of first page. It

does not bear signature of any person nor it bears any date nor it

is said in this endorsement as to at what place this endorsement

is written by the person who wrote. It further appears on back of

first page, which is last page that it bears emboss seal stamped

with writings indicating that it was registered on 23.11.1972

under the particular mentioned therein. It further appears from

front of first page that there is some endorsement therein

including expenses Rs.56.12 and also some other charge for

convenience and peon and in this manner this guarded total

Rs.65.62/-. The identifier Yasodanand Mishra has not been

examined. The appellate Court has categorically find as like

that of original Court that upon careful perusal of the gift deed,

it has been found that gift is not dully attested because DW 4 is

not reliable and other identifier-cum-attesting witness has not

been examined. It has also been found that statement of PW 1

and PW 2 indicate clearly that they never came face to face

with any subscriber, identifier and witness and the statement of Patna High Court SA No.89 of 1989 dt. 06-01-2026

PW 1 and PW 2 are definitely reliable at these points because of

many other circumstances also which the appellate Court has

indicated in the judgment and conclusively the appellate Court

has found that Exhibit-B is not duly registered because there is

much hide and seek. The petition for commission for Registrar

is withheld. The receipt for fee of commission is withheld. No

body takes responsibility to have brought registrar to the house

of Mahajan Kunwar. The Registrar came along with some

person, who may be any ascribe because of DW 2 claimed that

he never brought the Registrar and there is no reason as to why

Registrar DW 5 must know the house of Mahajan Kunwar. He

heard few words from behind Parda while himself sitting at

Darbaja and felt that it is an admission of execution. No body

told him that executents are behind Parda. DW 5 did not put

signature below his endorsement. There is no authenticity he

visited the house of plaintiff on 29.09.1972 nor there is

authenticity that he has definitely visited the house of the

plaintiff nor there is authenticity that plaintiffs were behind

Parda, when DW 5 was at Darbaja of the alleged executent and,

hence, there is no legal registration Ext-B.

9. In this view of the matter, both the original

Court as well as the appellate Court have raised doubt on the Patna High Court SA No.89 of 1989 dt. 06-01-2026

validity of Ext-B, which is the alleged deed of gift.

10. Here in the second appeal, the substantial

question of law, which has been framed by this Hon'ble Court

vide order No.4 dated 12.02.1990 reads as under:

"Whether the court-below

has misconceived the recital of execution in

the deed?"

11. With a view to decide the said substantial

question of law in his favour, the appellant submits that the deed

of gift was executed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents

after going through the recital of the deed and the same was

executed in accordance with law with full compliance of

Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882),

which requires the consideration of this Court. Learned Counsel

for the appellant further submits that there are five witnesses

DW 1 to DW 5, who supported the story of the defendant-

appellant-appellant but it has not been considered at all and,

therefore, the said decision of the Trial Courts are bad in law.

Since the reliance has been made by the Counsel for the

appellant is on Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act,

1882. Therefore, it is necessary for this Court to test it. Sections

122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 state as Patna High Court SA No.89 of 1989 dt. 06-01-2026

follows:

"122. "Gift" defined.-

"Gift" is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and withut consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.

Acceptance when to be made.- Such 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.

123. Transfer how effected.- For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses.

For the purpose of making a gift of movable property, the transfer may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery.

Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold Patna High Court SA No.89 of 1989 dt. 06-01-2026

may be delivered."

12. It is the categorical direction of Section 123

of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 that the Gift of immovable

property must be effected (i) by a registered instrument (ii)

signed on behalf of the donor, (iii) attested by at least two

witnesses.

13. From the deed it becomes crystal clear that

Yadodanand Singh was the identifier and the same Yasodanand

Singh had also signed at one page as witness. Deopari and

Rampari are claiming that their signature has been obtained by

fraud. Upon perusal of Ext-B, it further transpires that the said

deed of gift is of five pages. On the last three pages, there are

no signature of witnesses, only in second page there is signature

of one witness. Therefore, the said Ext-B does not fulfill the

ingredient of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,

and, hence, this Court is of the firm view that the said Ext-B is

not said to be a gift of deed and, hence, the ingredients of 123 of

the T.P. Act are lacking. It is due to this reason that the

substantial question of law that whether Court below has

misconceived the recital of execution of the deed cannot be

decided in favour of appellant. Hence, on the substantial

question of law that whether the court-below has misconceived

the recital of execution of the gift deed, this Court is of the firm Patna High Court SA No.89 of 1989 dt. 06-01-2026

view that when the said deed does not fulfills the basic

ingredients of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,

there is no question of going through the recital of the execution

of the deed and whatever be the discussion about the said Ext-B

on factual matrix as well as discussing evidence, this Court is of

the firm view that there is no need of any interference in the

concurrent finding of the Courts-below and in result, the second

appeal is dismissed.

14. Office is directed to return back the lower

court records to the Trial Court.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date          09.01.2026
Transmission Date       09.01.2026