Buyer Not Criminally Liable For Purchasing Property Based On Will Later Found Forged : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a property purchased on a Will later found to be forged cannot make the buyer liable for the fraudulent sale deed executed by the vendor. A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the criminal proceedings against the purchaser, who had been accused of facilitating a fraudulent property transfer by the vendor. The Court held that the buyer, having no knowledge of the allegedly forged Will at the time of purchase and being abroad during the relevant period, could not be held criminally liable for a transaction later found to be tainted by fraud on the part of the vendor. The Court said that in such a scenario of fraudulent transfer of property, the buyer cannot be called as accused, as they “would be the persons aggrieved because in such circumstances, their title over the property in question would land in dispute, having being acquired from the vendor who used the so called fabricated will to execute the registered sale deeds.” The dispute arose from a long-standing family property conflict in Tamil Nadu. The complainant alleged that a Will purportedly executed by his father shortly before his death in 1988 was fabricated. Based on this alleged forged Will, the complainant's brother transferred the property through sale deeds in 1998 to multiple purchasers, including the appellant. A criminal case was subsequently registered, invoking offences under the IPC for forgery, cheating, and conspiracy. The appellant, who was one of the purchasers, approached the courts seeking the quashing of proceedings, asserting that he had no role in the alleged fabrication of the Will and was merely a bona fide buyer. Allowing the appeal, the order passed by Justice Mehta held that the mere fact that a property transaction is later found to be rooted in a forged document does not automatically implicate the purchaser in criminal wrongdoing. In the absence of any material linking the purchaser to the alleged forgery or conspiracy and considering that he had acquired the property for valuable consideration after due verification, coupled with the fact that he was a minor at the time the Will was purportedly forged, the Court held that no inference of involvement could be drawn against him and consequently ruled out his role in the alleged fraudulent transfer of property. “…the appellant, being a purchaser of the subject property for valuable consideration, cannot, in the facts of the present case, be considered to be the person who offered fraudulent inducement to respondent No.2- complainant or made him to deliver some property or part with valuable security so as to bring his acts within the purview of fraudulent inducement and cheating to gain property punishable under Section 420 IPC [corresponding Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023].”, the court observed. The Court said that since the complaint was registered by the Respondent No.2, with whom Appellant's privity of contract doesn't exist. The Court ,reaffirming the principles laid down in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009), held that a third party cannot allege cheating against a purchaser merely because the vendor's title is defective. “Admittedly, there is no privity of contract between the appellant and respondent No.2- complainant. Neither the FIR nor the impugned order discloses availability of any tangible material to substantiate the allegation that the appellant had conspired in the preparation of the alleged forged Will, or that the registered sale deed dated 18th December, 1998 was executed by him with knowledge that the signatures on the Will were forged.”, the court held. In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and the pending criminal proceedings against the Appellant stand quashed. Cause Title: S. ANAND VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 429Click here to download orderAppearance: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Arvind Varma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Devesh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Mohd Faraz Anees, AOR Mr. Kartik Vashisht, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Chandra Seth, Adv. Ms. Theepa Murugesan, Adv. Ms. Sanya Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Mukeshwar Nath Dubey, Adv. Ms. Epsita Agastya, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Mahima Anand, Adv. Mr. Divesh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Anand, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Yash Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) :Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. A Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR Mr. S C V Vimal Pani, Adv. Mr. U Kathiravan, Adv. Ms. Shruti Bisht, AOR

Buyer Not Criminally Liable For Purchasing Property Based On Will Later Found Forged : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Buyer Not Criminally Liable For Purchasing Property Based On Will Later Found Forged : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers