Home Case Index All Cases Benami Property Benami Property + HC Benami Property - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 601 - HC - Benami PropertyBenami transaction - suit properties were the properties purchased by Kannapiran in the name of his wife as benami, for his benefit - independent right over the suit properties - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to divide their suit properties into seven equal shares as prayed for? - HELD THAT:- When there is a subsequent Will dated 05.02.2007, in respect of the suit properties, in the absence of production of Will dated 05.02.2007, Kannapiran cannot claim an independent right over the suit properties. May be there is no evidence produced by the respondent to show that the suit properties were purchased by her mother either from the funds provided to her by her parents or through money mobilized through chit transaction, recitals in Exhibits A8, A9 to A11, show that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of deceased Lakshmi Ammal. Thus, it can be concluded that the appellants had treated the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of Lakshmi Ammal. The judgment reported NAND KISHORE MEHRA VERSUS SUSHILA MEHRA [1995 (7) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT] relied in support of the case that the suit properties were purchased by Kannapiran in the name of his wife Lakshmi Ammal, this Court finds that it is not applicable to this case for the reasons stated above. This finding is fortified by the fact that Exhibit A8 release deed was executed by Kannapiran and defendants 4 to 6, only after getting a consideration of ₹ 18,00,000/- for releasing their right in the suit properties. If Exhibit B1 Will is true, what is the necessity for Kannapiran to relinquish his right in favour of his sons. When there is a release deed executed then, what is the necessity for again executing the settlement deeds. Thus, it is clear that the appellants had created documents one after other to deny the respondent, her right of share in the suit properties. From the oral and documentary evidence produced in this case, it can be concluded that suit properties are the self acquired properties of deceased Lakshmi Ammal and therefore, as a daughter, respondent is entitled to claim her share in the suit properties. The First Appellate Court considered the evidence in detail, reached right conclusion and decreed the suit. This Court finds no reason to take a different view of the matter and confirms the judgment of the First Appellate Court. Thus, substantial question of law is answered.
|