Madras HC Returns Disputed Sale Deed To Man Accused Of Forging Complainant’s Father’s Signature, Bars Property Transfer

The petitioner sought return of documents seized during the investigation in Crime No. 226 of 2021.

The second respondent alleged that the petitioner and his mother had forged her late father’s signature on a 2005 sale deed and a Will; the police filed a negative report, and the second respondent filed a protest petition.

On 30 September 2026, the High Court allowed the revision in part: it directed the return of specified documents but ordered that the 2005 sale deed remain in court custody until further investigation concluded.

On the petitioner’s request, the Court reconsidered that direction and issued the present order, modifying paragraphs 5 and 6 of its earlier order.

The revision petition was brought under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as stated in the petition’s prayer.

The Court’s order does not cite any precedent or articulate a broader statutory test.

It applies the case-specific consideration that documents not necessary for further investigation may be returned, while imposing conditions to preserve the property and ensure the document remains available to investigators if requested.

The Court had previously considered the seized documents unnecessary for further investigation, but retained the 2005 sale deed because it was the instrument allegedly executed by the second respondent’s father and was the subject of the forgery allegation.

On the petitioner’s further submission that the sale deed was also not required, the Court modified its earlier direction and ordered its return.

To protect the property and investigative process, it prohibited the petitioner from alienating or encumbering the property and required him to hand over the document to the investigating officer if requested for investigation.

It directed the return of the listed documents, including the original sale deed No. 817/2005 dated 8 February 2005, and prohibited alienation or creation of encumbrances over the property covered by that deed until further orders.

The petitioner must provide the deed to the investigating officer if required for investigation.

The Court also directed correction of the earlier order’s reference to “document no. 56 of 2025” to read “document no. 56 of 2005,” and directed the Registry to issue a corrected copy.