Illegal Transfer of Property through Forgery and Impersonation
Illegal Transfer of Property through Forgery and Impersonation
1. Meaning
Forgery: Making a false document or part of it with dishonest intent to cause damage or injury. In property transactions, forgery usually means falsification of sale deed, gift deed, will, or power of attorney.
Impersonation: Pretending to be someone else, e.g., signing and executing a deed in the name of the true owner or heir.
Both are illegal modes of transfer since the transferee acquires no legal title.
2. Civil Law Position
(A) Forged Deed – Void Ab Initio
A forged document is a nullity from the beginning.
It conveys no title to the transferee, not even to a bona fide purchaser.
Case: Gurunath Manohar v. Yeshwant (SC)
Held: A deed executed by a person impersonating the real owner is a forged deed and passes no title.
(B) Fraud or Misrepresentation – Voidable Document
Where the true owner executes a document but is misled about its contents, the document is voidable at his option.
Until set aside by a competent court, it remains valid and can even protect an innocent purchaser.
Case: Ningawwa v. Byrappa Shiddappa (SC 1968)
Held:
Fraud as to character of document (e.g., someone signs thinking it is a lease but actually it is a sale deed) → document is void.
Fraud as to contents (e.g., extent of land misstated) → document is voidable.
(C) Impersonation in Transfers
If a person impersonates the true owner and executes a deed, the document is non est in law.
No rights pass to the purchaser, even if he acted in good faith.
Case: Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh (SC 1990)
Facts: An imposter executed a gift deed.
Held: A document executed by an imposter is a nullity, not requiring formal cancellation; but where fraud relates to contents, a civil suit for cancellation is necessary.
3. Criminal Liability
Forgery and impersonation also attract criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code:
Section 463 – Definition of forgery.
Section 465 – Punishment for forgery.
Section 467 – Forgery of valuable security or will (serious offence).
Section 468 – Forgery for purpose of cheating.
Section 471 – Using forged document as genuine.
Section 416 – Cheating by personation.
Thus, a person committing forgery or impersonation is liable for both civil consequences (void/voidable deeds) and criminal prosecution.
4. Remedies of True Owner
Civil Remedies
Suit for declaration and cancellation of forged/voidable deed.
Suit for possession if dispossessed.
Injunction to restrain further transfer.
Criminal Remedies
Lodge FIR for offences of forgery, cheating, impersonation, conspiracy.
Registrar’s Role
Registrar cannot cancel a registered deed merely on complaint; cancellation normally requires civil court decree, except where statute allows limited summary action.
5. Principles of Law (Exam Points)
A forged deed is void ab initio – it creates no rights.
A voidable deed remains effective until set aside by a civil court.
Impersonation vitiates the very identity of transaction → void document.
Bona fide purchaser gets no protection if the root deed itself is forged (since nothing passes).
Courts distinguish between void (identity/character fraud) and voidable (content fraud).
6. Case Law Summary
Ningawwa v. Byrappa (1968 SC) – distinction between void and voidable documents.
Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh (1990 SC) – impersonation → deed void ab initio.
Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh (SC) – jurisdiction depends on whether deed is void (can be ignored) or voidable (needs cancellation).
Gurunath Manohar v. Yeshwant (SC) – forged deed passes no title, even to bona fide purchaser.
7. Conclusion
An illegal transfer of property by forgery or impersonation is a serious offence in law. A forged deed is a complete nullity, whereas a fraudulent but genuinely executed deed is voidable. The true owner’s rights remain protected, but he must approach the civil court to cancel voidable instruments, while forged deeds may simply be ignored as non-existent. Supreme Court decisions like Ningawwa, Dularia Devi, and Gorakh Nath Dube have clarified the fine line between void and voidable instruments. Alongside, IPC provisions ensure criminal punishment, reinforcing that property cannot change hands lawfully through deception.
RELATED Blog
0 comments