( 1 ) SUCCINCTLY stated, the case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property bearing Municipal No. 15-C, Vijay nagar, Delhi is joint Hindu family (HUF) property, having been acquired/adjusted against the value of properties left behind in Pakistan, as a consequence of the partition. For this purpose reliance has been placed on a letter dated 8. 12. 1958 addressed by the father of the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, namely, Late Shri Gosain lachman Gir to the Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi in which he has inter alia stated that - " the amount, equal to the value of House No. 15-C, Vijay Nagar, Delhi-9 under occupation of my son Shri Tek Chand, may kindly be transferred in his name enabling him to purchase that house". The Plaintiff asserts that being HUF property it is of little consequence that it stands in the exclusive name of his brother, Shri Tek Chand (Defendant no. 1), and the Defendant is entitled to enforce his share thereto.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the only brother of the plaintiff and Defendants No. 2 and 3 are their sisters, all the siblings being the children of the said Late Shri lachman and Late Smt. Bhagwanti. The sisters claim no rights in the suit property but have supported and sided with their brother, Defendant No. 1; and their counsel have prayed that the Suit be dismissed.

( 3 ) IT is the common case that immediately upon partition, the family migrated to India and had settled in Turkman Gate, Delhi. Defendant No. 1 and his family, however, appear to have set up their residence to the suit property at least by 8. 12. 1958, initially as a tenant. The rest of the family continued to reside in turkman Gate, Delhi. Learned counsel for the Defendants have explained that the Settlement Commissioner had effected an adjustment in respect of the suit property, whereas it ought to have been carried out in respect of the Turkman Gate property. In the letter dated 8. 12. 1958 authored by the father, namely, Shri Lachman and the subsequent letter of the Settlement Commissioner dated 19. 12. 1958 the sequence of events have been explained in this manner:

( 4 ) THE Lease Deed in respect of the suit property is dated 10. 6. 1982 and is in the favour of Defendant No. 1 only. It has been contended by learned counsel for the defendants that there is a distinction between Joint hindu Family and jointly owned property; in the former case a clear intention to treat the property as HUF property or to throw it in a hotchpotch must be evident, and that this is palpably manifested by joint mess and worship. It has further been strenuously submitted that the suit is hopelessly barred by time.

( 5 ) DEFENDANT No. 5 is the Union of India, Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation. Its relevance is that it has been admitted in its Written statement that the Lease Deed had been executed in favour of Defendant No. 1 consequent upon the aforementioned letter dated 8. 12. 1958. It may be recorded here that a statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil procedure had admittedly not been served on the Union of india prior to the filing of this Suit and Leave to continue with the proceedings has also not been prayed for or received.

( 6 ) DEFENDANT No. 4 is the Builder/developer who is involved/engaged in the construction of a two-storied building on the suit property, consequent upon an agreement entered into with it by Defendant No. 1. Demolition of suit property is stated to have commenced on 15. 12. 2003; foundation was laid on 13. 1. 2004; RCC roof slab of the Ground Floor was laid in March 2004 and this suit was filed as late as on 13. 4. 2004 by which time the rcc/roof slab of the First Floor had also been laid.

( 7 ) I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 bars the enforcement or adjudication of a right to any property on the grounds that it is held Benami. The exception to this legal obstacle is that the embargo w