2016 Supreme(SC) 1000

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
VISHRAM @ PRASAD GOVEKAR & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SUDESH GOVEKAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal Nos. 12068-12070 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 1949-1951 of 2014)
Decided On : 14-12-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Getting a property acquired in somebody’s name from Government does not make it a benami property.
To prove possession it is not necessary to prove continuous stay at the property.

Headnote:(a) Property law – Plaintiffs claiming ownership on Survey No. 251/2 on the basis of grant by Communidade of Anjuna to their father – Plaintiffs producing documents of the original grant, duly promulgated Survey Records and Inventory Proceedings initiated upon the death of Vassudev Govekar describing the suit property – Plaintiff admitting joint co-ownership with defendants on adjoining Survey No. 251/4 belonging to their grandfather – High Court rightly holding that plaintiffs successfully proved their title. (Para 17)

       (2008) 4 SCC 594 – Distinguished

       (b) Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Section 4(2) – Vassudev Govekar acquiring suit property by way of grant from Communidade of Anjuna – His father, Jagannath Govekar, getting the suit property acquired in the name of his son Vassudev Govekar – Jagannath Govekar cannot be held as owner of the suit property. (Para 18)

       (c) Property law – Possession – Plaintiffs claiming possession over suit property including incomplete suit house – Plaintiffs staying away in connection with their livelihood, but occasionally coming to the suit house and staying there – Cannot be said that they were not in possession of the same. (Para 20)

       Facts of the case:

       Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the children and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the sons-in-law of late Vassudev Govekar. On the other hand, appellant No.1 is the uncle (brother of late Vassudev Govekar) of the respondents. Appellant No.2 is the wife of appellant No.1 and appellant No.3 is their son. Vassudev Govekar and Vishram (appellant No.1) are the sons of late Shri Jagannath Govekar.

       The suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 ('plaintiffs') against the appellants ('defendants') was for specific performance and mandatory injunction. It pertained to the property known as 'Devalvadi' bearing Survey No. 251/2 situate at Chinvar in the village of Anjuna, Bardez, Goa, having an area of 1000 sq. mts. (the 'suit property'). It was averred by the plaintiffs that this property was acquired by late Shri Vassudev Govekar from the Communidade of Anjuna, Bardez, Goa under file No. 131/1963 on February 24, 1970 as a permanent grant for the construction of the house. Towards the eastern side of the suit property there exists another property bearing Survey No. 251/4 which belonged to their grandfather late Shri Jagannath Govekar and thereupon a house was constructed by him. It was further averred that the plaintiffs and defendants are the co-owners in title and in possession of the said property bearing Survey No. 251/4 as well as the house situated thereupon. Defendants have been residing in the suit property. Late Shri Vassudev Govekar, during his lifetime, was enjoying the suit property and after his death the plaintiffs and other co-owners were enjoying the said property and the house without interruption. However, when plaintiff Nos. 1, 3 and 5 visited the suit property on December 13, 2006, they were shocked to see that the suit house was demolished and in its place a new construction of structure comprising 219.60 sq.mts. area was being constructed and the construction had reached from ground level to slab level height. The plaintiffs protested this kind of invasion by the defendants with a request for them to stop the construction of the said illegal structure. It did not yield any result.

       This led them to file the aforesaid suit

       The trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

       The plaintiffs challenged this judgment by preferring first appeal which was allowed and the suit was decreed.

       The High Court dismissed the second appeal thereby affirming the decree passed by the lower appellate court.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.