Current thinking is that the idea of "mass increasing as you get closer to the speed of light" is a bad one to use. It used to be quite a popular view, but has fallen out of favour, since it often leads to misconceptions like yours. We used to talk about "rest mass", which is an invariant quantity, and "relativistic mass", which grew as the object accelerated. "Mass" might mean either, depending on context. In modern terminology, "mass" or "rest mass" are used interchangeably to refer to the invariant quantity, and "relativistic mass" isn't used. I suggest you
In any case, the "strength" of gravity depends on the rest mass, which doesn't change when the object accelerates. One simple way to see that this must be true is that there isn't an absolute concept of speed in relativity. If you aren't accelerating, you can consider yourself at rest, and if I'm moving relative to you, you say I'm moving. But I can consider myself at rest and you as moving, as long as I'm not accelerating myself (this is the point of the "what time does Oxford stop at this train?" quote often attributed to Einstein). If gravity depends on relativistic mass, then I see myself as normal and you moving with a large relativistic mass, so things ought to fall towards you. You see yourself as normal and me moving with a large relativistic mass, so things ought to fall towards me. Those two views aren't compatible, and there's no way to make them compatible except to drop the idea of "relativistic mass causing gravity".
Gravity in General Relativity is a very complex beast. Energy of motion does, actually, feed into it, but not in the simple "make it stronger" way you are thinking.