Home Case Index All Cases Benami Property Benami Property + HC Benami Property - 2016 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1332 - HC - Benami PropertyFamily settlement - Decree for possession - ownership of the Hauz Khan Enclave property - who is the real owner of the suit property - suit was contested by Sudhir, contending that the plaint was liable to be rejected as Satyapal merely claimed that the property was purchased in Sudhir's name which in effect amounts to an assertion of its being benami under the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Held that:- Quite apart from the procedural impropriety of the impugned judgment, this Court is also of the opinion that the learned Single Judge's reasoning is flawed, inasmuch as it holds that an antecent claim or right is to exist, before a valid and enforceable family settlement can be the basis of a civil action. The possibility of a future dispute is enough precondition for members of one family to arrive at a settlement, with a view to avoid it. Existence of real or claimed title is not the basis of the settlement. Whether, for a valid settlement, to avoid future disputes, it is a precondition that all members of a family have to enter into a settlement? - Held that:- This Court does not see any condition, or barrier in the form a necessity to involve all members of a family. If the disputes are inter se as between two members, there is no bar to the designation of their settlement as a family arrangement or settlement. It has the objective of orderliness in the title of each member of the family and crucially, ensures peace and harmony amongst all of them. If the law is that those not considered family members can enter into binding "family" arrangements, it cannot be that all members of a family have to be party to a settlement as a precondition for its binding nature. This argument is, accordingly rejected. The impugned judgment, inasmuch as it dismisses Satyapal's suit, is set aside.
|