The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the source of funds and the intention of the parties to establish benami ownership, as well as the valuation and court fee requirements for suits involving injunctions and possession.

1. The plaintiff, Ms. Padmavati Mahajan, is the mother of Mr.Yogender Mahajan, defendant no.1 and mother-in-law of Ms.Sushma Mahajan, defendant no.2. She seeks decree of permanent injunction against the defendants from parting with possession or creating third party rights in respect of the property no.D-95, Anand Niketan, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Property, for short). She also seeks mandatory injunction against the defendants to forthwith remove themselves and their belongings from the Property.

2. It is an admitted case of both the parties that by a perpetual Sub-Lease Deed dated 29th May, 1968, marked Exh.PW 1/1 the plaintiff was granted leasehold rights in the said Property. The said Sub-lease Deed is a registered document. It is also an admitted case of the parties that vide Conveyance Deed dated 12th November, 2001, marked PW1/2, the Property was converted into freehold in the name of the plaintiff as the owner.

3. Mr. Prabhudayal Mahajan, husband of the plaintiff and father of defendant no.1 expired in 1983 and the defendant no.1 is one of their five children.

4. The plaintiff claims that she wants to sell the Property and has entered into an Agreement to Sell with a third party. She has also made allegations about ill-treatment at the hands of defendant nos. 1 and 2.

5. The defendants in their common written statement have claimed that the Property was purchased out of funds provided by a Partnership Firm, M/s. Bhagmal Satyapal (hereinafter referred to as the Partnership Firm, for short) of which the defendant no.1 and his father, Mr. Pradbhudayal Mahajan were partners along with some other parties who held 56% shares. It is also stated that the building on the said Property was constructed out of the funds provided from accounts of the said Partnership Firm. The defendant no.1 also claims that he is entitled to and is owner of 72.1% share in the property on the basis that the funds were provided by the Partnership Firm in which he held 29% share, while his father had 15% share. It is accordingly stated that the defendant no.1 is the owner of 66.5% of the Property in his own right as he had invested funds and he further acquired 5.6% share on the death of his father to make up for 72.1% share claimed by him. The defendant no.1 also claims that he is a tenant on the upper floor of the property, paying rent @ Rs.2000/- p.m.

.6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 15th May, 2007 :- “(1) Whether the property No.D-95, Anand Niketan, New Delhi was acquired out of the funds of the firm M/s.Bhagmal Satyapal” If so, its effect” OPD. (2) Whether the defendants have any right, title or interest in the aforesaid immovable property” OPD. (3) Whether defendant No.1 is tenant in respect of the first floor of the suit property” OPD. (4) Relief.”

. ISSUE NOS. 1 AND 2

7. Issue nos. 1 and 2 for the sake of convenience are being dealt with together. The Sub-lease Deed dated 29th May, 1968 and the Conveyance Deed dated 12th November, 2001 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the Property being Exh,PW-1/1 and Exh. PW-1/2 are admitted documents. In view of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the plaintiff and not the defendant no.1 is the owner of the Property.

.8. Defendant no.1, however, claims that funds for purchase of leasehold rights and for construction of the building were provided by the Partnership Firm in which the defendant no.1 had 29% share at the relevant time i.e.

.when Sub-lease Deed was executed and the construction was made in early 1970. In other words, it is claimed that he is a benami owner of the Property as funds and consideration for purchase of the plot and for construction of the building were paid by the Partnership Firm in which he held 29% share.

9. The present Suit was filed on 17th January, 2007 after the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) had come into force. I may note