2021 (9) TMI 317 - SCH - Benami Property

Benami transaction - benami ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property taken by the defendant in his written statement - right of coparcener in the Hindu Undivided Family - claiming a decree for mandatory and permanent injunction for directing the defendant, the present appellant to hand over vacant possession of the property in question and mesne profits - The plaintiff had pleaded that she became the owner of property by virtue of gift deed executed on 03.09.1984 by her father- Late Sh. K.B. Midha - HELD THAT - The husband of the plaintiff and the defendant are real brothers being sons of Late Sh. Krishna Lal Gulati. The property in question was gifted by the father of the plaintiff to her daughter i.e. the plaintiff. The defendant in the written statement pleaded many other facts relating to joint business of the family and the partition of the assets of family of Late Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati. The assertion made by the defendant in the written statement was denied by filing a rejoinder. The plea raised by the appellant is that the plaintiff was a Benami holder of the property. Such plea is barred in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act. Since such plea was not available in law, the High Court was justified in passing a decree on the basis of the written statement filed. The arguments that the plaintiff was holding the property in fiduciary capacity is not tenable in as much as the averment made by the defendant is of passing the consideration in favour of father of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff was not holding the property in a fiduciary capacity for the defendant. Still further, the defendant has not pleaded that the Plaintiff or her father had any fiduciary capacity as against the defendant is concerned. In the present case, the father of the plaintiff had no fiduciary relationship with the defendant falling in Section 4(3)(b) of the Act. The finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in respect of blending of the property by the plaintiff in the Joint Hindu Family will arise only if it is a case falling under Clause (a) of sub-Section (3) of Section 4 of the Act, 1988. Such was not the case set up by the defendant. In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed. As the plaintiff is giving up her claim of mesne profits. The amount of ₹ 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) deposited in terms order dated 06.11.2015 of this Court be refunded to the defendant subject to the condition that the defendant hands over vacant physical possession of the property in question to the plaintiff within two months from today.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi.
2. Claim for mandatory and permanent injunction by the plaintiff-respondent.
3. Defense raised by the defendant regarding the property in question.
4. Application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5. Interpretation of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
6. Applicability of Order XII Rule 6, Order XIV Rule 1, and Order XV Rule 1 of the CPC.
7. Dispute regarding fiduciary capacity and benami holding of the property.
8. Comparison with a previous judgment regarding fiduciary relationships.
9. Finding of the Division Bench regarding blending of the property in the Joint Hindu Family.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. The plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit seeking a decree for mandatory and permanent injunction to obtain vacant possession of a property, claiming ownership through a gift deed executed by her father. The defendant, in response, raised various defenses related to the property's ownership and family business activities. An application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was filed, leading to the Single Judge decreeing the suit, which was later upheld by the Division Bench.

The main argument raised by the appellant was regarding the interpretation of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, claiming that the plaintiff held the property in a fiduciary capacity and thus exempt from the Act's provisions. However, the Court found that the plaintiff being a family member did not establish a fiduciary relationship with the defendant. The Court also noted that the suit was decreed based on Order XII Rule 6, although Order XIV Rule 1 and Order XV Rule 1 should have been applied as no triable issue arose from the pleadings.

The appellant cited a previous judgment, which was deemed inapplicable to the present case due to differences in the nature of the dispute and the absence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties. The Division Bench's finding on blending the property in the Joint Hindu Family was deemed irrelevant as the case did not fall under the Act's specified clauses. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, with the plaintiff agreeing to forgo mesne profits and refunding a specified amount upon the defendant handing over possession of the property.

In conclusion, the Court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Benami Property Transactions Act, the lack of a fiduciary relationship, and the application of relevant CPC rules, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal and resolution of the pending matters.