Forging Mother’s Will To Deny Sister Property Share Not ‘Civil Dispute’, Says High Court

Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of forging his late mother’s will to deny his sister a share in a Ujjain property, holding that the matter went beyond a civil dispute.

Justice Gajendra Singh noted that the purported will did not bear the mother’s thumb impression and that the sole surviving attesting witness had denied its execution. “The matter cannot be treated as a mere civil dispute; rather, it goes beyond the scope of a civil dispute,” the court observed.

According to the prosecution, the applicant allegedly forged a will purportedly executed by his mother on June 4, 2013, concerning a 4,350-square-foot plot in Ujjain. The woman had two sons and a daughter.

The case arose from a complaint by the applicant’s sister, who alleged that the will surfaced only in 2023. She claimed that her brother got the property mutated in his name without her consent on Apr 29, 2024 and subsequently transferred it through a registered sale deed to his son, a co-accused, to exclude her from her share.

During the investigation, the Finger Printing Bureau opined that the purported will did not bear the mother’s thumb impression. The sole surviving attesting witness also denied its execution.

The applicant’s counsel argued that there was no legal evidence of forgery and the dispute was essentially civil.

The sister objected, pointing out that the applicant had not disclosed the earlier rejection of his co-accused son’s anticipatory bail plea. The applicant said the non-disclosure was unintentional as he was unaware of those proceedings.

The High Court noted that the will surfaced after the sister claimed a share in the property.

It also considered the mutation in the applicant’s name, formation of M/s Shalimar Associates in November 2023, a Rs 1.28 crore loan obtained by the company with the applicant as co-borrower, and the subsequent sale of the property to his son.

Finding that the circumstances indicated alleged document forgery aimed at excluding a female heir, the court held that the case could not be treated as merely civil.

It also noted the earlier rejection of the co-accused’s bail and dismissed the anticipatory bail application.