Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 837
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, JJ.
Indranil Mukherjee - Appellant
Versus
Jayeeta Mukherjee - Respondent
F.M.A. No. 1291 of 2017
Decided On : 21-12-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anindya Lahiri and Samrat Dey Paul
For the Respondents: Uday Sankar Bhattacharya and Partha Sarathi Das
The main legal point established in the judgment is that investments made for the benefit of the plaintiff's wife and children were not benami transactions and the suit seeking declaration of ownership and injunction was maintainable.
Headnote:
Benami Transactions - Property Dispute - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - [BENAMI TRANSACTIONS] - [Property Dispute] - [Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988] - The court discussed the investments made by the plaintiff in various accounts and properties for the benefit of his wife and children. The defendant No. 1 was restrained from operating bank accounts and encashing fixed deposits till the disposal of the suit. The court held that the concept of benami transactions did not apply to the investments made by the plaintiff, and the suit was maintainable. The court also found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted injunction to protect the future of the plaintiff's wife and children.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a qualified Chartered Accountant, invested substantial income in various accounts and properties for the benefit of his wife and children. He filed a suit seeking declaration of his ownership in the investments and permanent injunction against the defendants from withdrawing any further amount from the joint accounts and properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted injunction to protect the future of the plaintiff's wife and children. The court held that the concept of benami transactions did not apply to the investments made by the plaintiff, and the suit was maintainable.
Issues: The issues involved the ownership of investments made by the plaintiff, the application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and the entitlement to interim relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the investments made by the plaintiff for the benefit of his wife and children were not benami transactions and the suit was maintainable. The court also found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted injunction to protect the future of the plaintiff's wife and children.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment and order, and restrained the defendant No. 1 from operating the bank account and encashing any fixed deposits mentioned in the injunction application till the disposal of the suit. The respondent No. 2 was also restrained from operating the bank account mentioned in the injunction application till disposal of the suit. The parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to their share in Abahan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and/or their interest in the property as mentioned in the injunction application till the disposal of the suit.
JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J.
1. This First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against an order being No. 15 dated 30th January, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court at Barasat in Title Suit No. 707 of 2016 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant. By the impugned order the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was rejected by the learned Trial Judge. As such the instant appeal was filed.
2. This appeal was admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is now placed for hearing before this Court.
3. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the present case.
4. The parties are closely related to each other. The plaintiff is the husband of the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 is the father-in-law of the plaintiff. The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 was solemnized on 7th July, 2003 as per Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and their social marriage took place on 20th November, 2003. The plaintiff is a qualified Chartered Accountant. He had been serving at Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. at the material time. He used to draw healthy amount as salary. He purchased one flat at New Town, described in Schedule B being item No. 3 in the joint name of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff has also invested some money for purchasing the share in Abahan Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. to the extent of proposed flat being No. 2D to be measured around 1200 sq.fts. in the name of his wife for the benefit of his son. He also invested some money in purchasing share in Abahan Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. to the extent of proposed flat bearing No. 7D, to be measured around 1200 sq.fts. in the name of his father-in-law for the benefit of his daughter. To secure the future of the defendant No. 1 and his future offspring the plaintiff had invested substantial income from his salary in different types of accounts in various banks held by him jointly with his wife or father-in-law. The investments which are mentioned in Schedule AI of the plaint were made by the plaintiff to secure the future of his wife and his children. Some investments were also made by him in fixed deposit in the name of his wife in Union Bank of India with an idential idea of securing the future of his wife and children. Particulars of those deposits are mentioned in Schedule A2. He also invested some money either in fixed deposits or in savings bank account in Axis Bank in his own name along with his father-in-law, the defendant No. 2. Particulars of those deposits are mentioned in Schedule A3.
5. It is alleged by the plaintiff that while the plaintiff was in jail custody from 7th July, 2015 to 17th July, 2015 in connection with GR Case No. 610 of 2015 arising out of Bidhannagar (South) P.S. Case No. 102 of 2015 dated 7th July, 2015 huge amount of money was withdrawn by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from the aforesaid bank accounts which were held by the plaintiff jointly either with his wife and/or with his father-in-law and most of such money withdrawn by the defendant No. 1 (wife) was invested by her in fixed deposits in her own name. Details of such investments which were made by the defendant No. 1 either in the savings bank account or in the fixed deposits after withdrawing the same from the joint account of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 are mentioned in Schedule A5. Valuable articles including jewellary and ornaments of the deceased mother of the plaintiff as well as of the plaintiff which were kept in the locker in the joint name of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 in Axis Bank were also withdrawn by the defendant No. 1 by operating the said bank locker herself. The plaintiff claims that all such investments either in the bank deposits or in the properties as mentioned above were made out of the income of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had no contribution in such investments. As such the plain
