Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1480
High Court of Delhi
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
Hemant Satti
Versus
Mohan Satti & Others
CS(OS) No. 824 of 2010 & IA Nos. 5600, 8351, 8352 of 2010 & 13922 of 2012, 16912 of 2012
Decided On : 07-11-2013
For the Plaintiff:Gaurav Mitra, Vijayender Kumar, Ms. Samreen Ms. Megha Bansiwal, Advocates.
For the Defendants:D1, Rahul Sharma, D2, Ms. Jyoti D. Sharma, Advocates.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11(d) - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Section 3(2), 4(2) - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14(1) - Partition - Benami transaction - Jurisdiction - Suit for partition and permanent injunction - Two properties situated in two different jurisdiction - Plaintiff wants partition in the properties, shares and debentures - Plea of a benami transaction in respect of the Delhi property - Property is in the name of mother - Nowhere it stated in the plaint that the property was not acquired for the benefit of the mother - Plaintiff is not permitted to raise such a plea at this belated stage - Property of Delhi belonged absolutely to Defendant No.2 and she was free to deal with it in any way which she pleased during her lifetime - Relief of partition in respect of the Delhi property can not be granted - Gurgaon property is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Delhi - Entertaining the suit for the purpose of Gurgaon property alone does not arise - It will be open to the Plaintiff to seek appropriate remedies before the court of appropriate jurisdiction - Shares and debentures were in the joint names of the Plaintiffs late father and Defendant No. 2 - After death of father it has come entirely to the share of Defendant No. 2 - Partition during her life time does not arise - Plaint is rejected with liberty to seek relief in respect of only the Gurgaon property in other appropriate proceedings in accordance with law - Interim order is vacated.
I.A. No. 8351 and 8352 of 2010 (u/S 16 r/w O VII R. 11 CPC)
1. The background to these applications is that the aforementioned suit has been filed by Mr. Hemant Satti against his brother, Mr. Mohan Satti (Defendant No.1), his mother Mrs. Chander Kanta Satti (Defendant No.2), his sister Mrs. Rachana Mundepi (D-3) and his other sister Mrs. Madhu Preet Kaur (D-4) for partition and permanent injunction.
2. The case of the Plaintiff is that late Mr. Tek Chand Satti, the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 1, 3 and 4 and the deceased husband of Defendant No. 2 had, during his life time, accumulated a considerable amount of funds and had, on 24th September 2004, purchased house No. 967, Type – I, Haryana Housing Board Colony, Saraswati Vihar, Gurgaon admeasuring 100 sq. yds (hereafter the ‘Gurgaon property’) for a consideration of Rs. 1,55,585/-.
3. It is further stated that at the same time, Mr. Tek Chand Satti purchased another property at R-18/2, 1st Floor, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi- 110092 (hereafter the ‘Delhi property’). However, the conveyance deed was executed in the name of his wife, i.e., Defendant No.2.
4. In para 7 of the plaint, it is stated as under:
“7. It is respectfully submitted that since the purchase of the property situated at R-18/2, 1st Floor, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110092, the said property was at all times treated as Joint Family Property of Late Mr. Tek Chand Satti and his family members and that the Defendant No.2 was holding the said property in trust for others. It is submitted that till the date of filing of the present suit, the said property has been understood, treated and believed as co-owned property of all the legal heirs of Late Mr. Tek Chand Satti as a joint family property for the common benefit and enjoyment by all such legal heirs.”
5. The case of the Plaintiff is that late Mr. Tek Chand Satti allowed the Plaintiff and his family members to reside at the Gurgaon property and in similar fashion allowed Defendant No. 1 together with his family members to reside at the Delhi property. The Plaintiff is stated to be in possession of the Gurgaon property as of date and Defendant No. 1 of the Delhi property. Apart from these two immovable properties, it is stated that Mr. Tek Chand Satti left behind shares and debentures of various companies and these three items have been collectively referred to in the plaint as suit properties.
6. The Plaintiff states that after the demise of Mr. Tek Chand Satti, he requested Defendant No. 1 that the suit properties be partitioned in the ratio of 1/5th share each in favour of the legal representatives of late Mr. Tek Chand Satti, the father. It is further stated that the Defendant No.1 rejected this request and further threatened to dispossess the Plaintiff from the Gurgaon property. In the above circumstances, the suit was filed for a preliminary decree of partition in respect of the suit properties followed by a division of the properties by metes and bounds by passing a final decree of partition.
7. While directing summons to be issued on 30th April 2010, an order was passed by this Court restraining the Defendants from creating any third party interest in respect of the Gurgaon property and also maintain status quo with regard to the shares and debentures in the various companies a list of which has been filed along with the plaint. As regards the Delhi property, the Court observed that since it was in the name of the mother and the mother was alive, “prima facie the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the said property”.
8. Thereafter the Defendant No. 2 filed IA 8351 of 2010 and Defendant No.1 filed IA 8352 of 2010 both under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. This was simultaneous with the written statements filed by both of them. In both applications, it is submitted that the suit is not maintainable on the grounds (a) that the Court lacks territorial jurisdiction as far as the Gurgaon property is c
