Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 1400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S.Patel, J.
Sabita Rajesh Narang - Plaintiff
versus
Sandeep Gopal Raheja & Ors. - Defendants
SUIT NO. 777 OF 2014
AND
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1211 OF 2014
Decided On : 11.9.2015
FOR THE PLAINTIFF :Ms. Rajani Iyer, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Satish Shah, i/b Pankaj Parsurampuria & Aatish Parsurampuria
FOR DEFENDANT NO. 1 :Mr. D.J. Khambata, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Z. Behramkamdin, Mr. Vivek Vashi, Ms. Kanika Sharma, Ms. Alya Khan & Ms. Aditi Bhansali, i/b Vivek Vashi
FOR DEFENDANTS NOS. 2 TO 4 :Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karl Tamboly, i/b Vivek Vashi
FOR DEFENDANT NO.5 :Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Chirag Mody, Mr. Aditya Mehta, Ms. Teresa Daulat & Mr. Pariket Shah, i/b Divya Shah & Associates
FOR DEFENDANTS NOS. 7 TO 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 25, 31 AND 21. :Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sanjay Jain & Mr. Malhar Zatakia, i/b M/s. AZB & Partners
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Plaintiff to provide evidence to support her claims, especially in cases involving family disputes, the Benami Transactions Act, and limitation.
Headnote:
Benami Transactions Act - Family Dispute - CPC 1908 - Section 9A - Benami Transactions Act - Section 4(3)(b) - Limitation - Suit Dismissed
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a family dispute over assets and properties held in the family of the late Gopal Raheja. The Plaintiff, Sabita Narang, filed a suit for partition, claiming an equal and undivided share in all the properties and assets of the family. The Defendants contested the suit on the grounds of the Benami Transactions Act and limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was barred under the provisions of the Benami Transactions Act and was also barred by limitation. The Plaintiff's refusal to provide evidence led to the dismissal of the suit.
Issues: The issues involved preliminary questions under Section 9A of the CPC, including whether the suit was barred under the provisions of the Benami Transactions Act and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the Plaintiff's failure to provide evidence to support her claims, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The court also emphasized the need for evidence to establish the alleged family arrangements and the fiduciary relationship, as well as the importance of proving the claims of limitation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit, ruling that it was barred under the provisions of the Benami Transactions Act and was also barred by limitation. No costs were awarded.
1. I have heard counsel for the parties at some length today on the following two preliminary issues that were framed under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) on 8th December 2014 in the suit filed on 30th July 2014.
(a) Whether the Suit as filed is barred under the provisions of the Benami Transactions Act?
(b) Whether the Suit is barred by limitation?
2. Before I proceed to the merits, I note that not only has the Plaintiff, Sabita Narang (“Sabita”) on previous occasions declined to lead any evidence on either of these preliminary issues but even more startling, when, earlier this morning, after having heard Ms. Iyer for Sabita for a little over an hour, I asked her to take instructions, she was only able to say that Sabita would even then not step into the witness box. Sabita has been in Court throughout the day today. Ms. Iyer twice sought and was granted leave including over the lunch recess to consult with her client. I indicated that I was even now, at any time before I began dictating judgment in Court, prepared to allow Sabita to lead such evidence as she thought necessary for the purposes of these two preliminary issues. I did so because I was disinclined to decide a matter such as this without affording Sabita the fullest opportunity to bring all her material before me. I went so far as to say that I would permit even an oral application for leave to give that evidence, and that I would not countenance any opposition from the Defendants in that regard. About this much I was very clear: that disallowing Sabita an opportunity to lead evidence, with possibly fatal results, was a course of action that would certainly determine her rights. Allowing her to lead evidence, on the other hand, would not in itself be a determination of any rights at all. It would only enable Sabita to place on record all the evidence she could possibly marshall. For reasons that are even now unclear to me, but which give me significant pause to doubt, Sabita has chosen not to set foot on this path. That is certainly her choice. Unfortunately, it is a choice saddled with consequences.
3. The dispute pertains to certain assets and properties said to be held in the family of the late Gopal Raheja. During his lifetime, Gopal Raheja amassed a considerable fortune with his many enterprises in the hospitality, shopping, construction and real estate sectors. He died on 18th March 2014 following a protracted illness. His wife, Sheila, died some years earlier. Disputes began in his lifetime, in 2012. These were between him and his son, the 1st Defendant (“Sandeep”). His daughter Sonali Arora (the 5th Defendant; “Sonali”) supported him. So did Sabita, his other daughter, though after a fashion; for, as the following discussion shows, her narrative is something of a departure from her father’s. Gopal Raheja filed Suit No. 2363 of 2012. A few months after he died, Sabita filed this suit for partition. Sonali filed Chamber Summons No. 708 of 2014 in Gopal Raheja’s suit asking to be transposed as the Plaintiff. I allowed that Chamber Summons on 30th April 2015. Sonali then filed an administration action, Suit No. 103 of 2015. Preliminary issues under Section 9A of the CPC are pending determination in Gopal Raheja’s suit (in which Sonali is now the plaintiff) and in Sonali’s own suit.
4. The three siblings, Sandeep, Sonali and Sabita are now at war over the assets and properties in what Ms. Iyer calls the “Gopal Raheja Group”. This seems to me a somewhat fluid term. It sometimes includes Sandeep’s spouse, the 2nd Defendant, Durga Sandeep Raheja (“Durga”) so that, used in the context of events that occurred while Gopal Raheja was alive, the so-called “Group” included five persons (Gopal Raheja, his three children and Durga), and possibly a sixth, the Gopal Raheja HUF. Inexplicably, the phrase later shrinks to four persons, viz., Gopal Raheja and his three children. This is a matter of some moment given the frame of Sabita’s suit. The ot
