Ancestral property and proof of registered gift deeds: mere succession through an ancestor does not defeat a valid gift.

Property bequeathed by a father to his son does not become ancestral property merely because it came through an ancestor; absent pleading or proof that the will created a family benefit, the burden to establish ancestral character remains on the challenger, and the donor was competent to gift the property. Where a registered gift deed is not specifically denied, a general allegation of forgery does not trigger the requirement to examine an attesting witness under the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act; the deed therefore could not be invalidated on that ground.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit properties, which had been purchased by the grandfather and later devolved on the donor by will, were ancestral property or self-acquired property in the donor's hands; (ii) whether, in the absence of a specific denial of execution of the registered gift deed, the donee was required to examine an attesting witness under the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

Issue (i): whether the suit properties, which had been purchased by the grandfather and later devolved on the donor by will, were ancestral property or self-acquired property in the donor's hands.

Analysis: The properties were admitted to have been purchased by the grandfather and transmitted to the donor by testamentary disposition. In the absence of any pleading or proof that the will intended the property to be held for the benefit of the family, the mere fact of succession through a male ancestor did not make the property ancestral in the donor's hands. The governing principle applied was that self-acquired property, when bequeathed by a father, does not automatically become coparcenary property in the hands of the donee. The burden to establish ancestral character lay on the plaintiffs, and it was not discharged.

Conclusion: The suit properties were held to be self-acquired property in the donor's hands, and he was competent to transfer them by gift.

Issue (ii): whether, in the absence of a specific denial of execution of the registered gift deed, the donee was required to examine an attesting witness under the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

Analysis: The pleadings did not contain a specific denial of execution of the registered gift deed; instead, the challenge was framed as forgery and fabrication. The Court treated this as different from an express and unqualified denial of execution. Where a registered document, other than a will, is not specifically denied, the proviso to Section 68 dispenses with the need to call an attesting witness. On the facts, no cogent evidence of forgery was produced, and the challenge remained unsubstantiated.

Conclusion: The donee was not obliged to examine an attesting witness, and the gift deed could not be invalidated on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's view that the donor had competence to execute the gift deed and that the deed was not proved to be invalid was upheld, leaving no ground for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Property bequeathed by a father to his son does not become ancestral property merely because it came from an ancestor, and a registered non-will document need not be proved by an attesting witness unless its execution is specifically denied.

---