Jalsa Gift Deed Row: Ramola Bachchan Challenges 1993 Transfer To Jaya Bachchan

According to reports, she has told the registration and co-operative authorities that she was unaware of the deed, did not consent to it and did not execute the transaction. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Andheri, has begun a hearing and called for replies from the other parties. No authority has yet ruled on the validity of the deed or on the competing claims to ownership.

The complaints have been pending for about seven months and were reported for the first time by Mumbai Mirror, which said it had reviewed the documents Ramola submitted to the authorities. Ramola did not speak to the newspaper for its report.

According to the reports, Ramola has filed multiple complaints before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Andheri; the Registrar of Co-operative Societies; the Joint Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies; and the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps, Pune.

The correspondence reviewed by Mumbai Mirror includes an RTI application dated February 16, 2026, an August 7 communication from the Additional Controller of Stamps, a representation to the Inspector General dated August 26, and a further representation submitted in October 2026.

The matter is presently being heard by the Deputy Registrar at Andheri. Confirming that the complaint had been received, Deputy Registrar Faiyaz Mulani told Mumbai Mirror, "We received their complaint about a month ago, alleging an improper transfer of the property, and initiated a hearing. We have asked the other parties to submit their replies."

The core of Ramola's challenge concerns how the 1993 document came into existence. Her representations state that the deed was drawn up on plain paper, without stamp paper and without payment of stamp duty at the time of execution. They also point out that the document bears Jaya Bachchan's signature but carries no attesting witnesses.

The complaints further raise questions over the use of a document bearing Ramola's own signature in connection with the transaction. These remain allegations made in her representations; they have not been tested or decided.

According to the complaint, a gift deed executed on plain paper and without witnesses was registered 13 years later, in 2006, which, it says, raises questions over compliance with various Central enactments. The complaint, as reported, does not identify those enactments.

Under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a gift of immovable property must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. Whether, and how, that requirement bears on the Jalsa deed is a question for the authorities.

A central issue in Ramola's correspondence is whether a gift deed executed on plain paper could have been accepted for stamp-duty regularisation under the Maharashtra government's Stamp Duty Abhay Yojana, introduced during 2004-2006.

The Abhay Yojana is an amnesty scheme that offers relief on unpaid stamp duty and penalties on eligible old documents, allowing parties to regularise their liability by paying reduced duty and penalty. It does not, by itself, establish the authenticity or legal validity of a document or of the signatures on it.

In her August 26 representation to the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps, Ravindra Laxman Binwade, Ramola questioned the acceptance of the Jalsa deed under the scheme. The representation refers to her February 16 RTI application seeking the scheme notification. In its reply dated March 4, the registration department stated, "Plain-paper documents from 1980 to date cannot be admitted."

The complaint also relies on the August 7 communication from Additional Controller of Stamps Sunil Mahindrakar, which states that the scheme does not establish the authenticity or legal validity of signatures. On that footing, the complaint seeks clarification on how the deed was accepted for regularisation and whether that process addressed the questions surrounding its original execution.

Mumbai Mirror sought a response from registration officials, including Binwade. Officials from his office confirmed that the matter was under legal consideration.

The second strand of the dispute lies in a mismatch between two sets of records. According to the complaints, the shares in the Kapol Housing Society were transferred from Ramola's name to Jaya Bachchan's, and the society's records now identify Jaya as the owner. The Maharashtra government's Property Card for Jalsa, however, continues to bear Ramola's name.

Property-related records indicate that the bungalow stood in Ramola's name before Jaya's name was reportedly brought into the documentation in 2006. The dispute resurfaced, the report said, after alleged attempts to remove Ramola's name from the Property Card and enter Jaya's instead.

The deed was later relied upon to transfer shares in the co-operative society, which, according to the report, was until recently under government administration following allegations of various irregularities.

As reported, the authorities are examining not only the original 1993 deed but also its regularisation under the Abhay Yojana, a Declaration Deed, and the changes made to the housing society's records. Replies from the parties and a clarification from the registration department are awaited.

Jalsa's History

Jalsa, originally known as Mansa, was once owned by film producer NC Sippy. Amitabh Bachchan has spoken publicly about the bungalow's history, saying the family bought it, later sold it and then bought it back before rebuilding it and naming it Jalsa. The bungalow is also linked to his 1982 film Satte Pe Satta, with reports stating that it was given to him as remuneration for the film.

The bungalow remains the venue of Bachchan's weekly 'Sunday Darshan', where he greets fans gathered outside; he continued the practice on November 8.

Source: Mumbai Mirror