The main legal point established in the judgment is that claims of contribution to purchase consideration and counter-claims based on mutual family settlement and agreement to partition and divide assets may be barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 if the claimant has no pre-existing right in the property.

CS(OS) 108/2016 AND CC No.69/2016

1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for recovery of possession of basement and ground floor of property No. C-425, Defence Colony, New Delhi, pleading:

(i) that the defendant is the brother of the husband of the plaintiff;

(ii) that the property No. C-425, Defence Colony, New Delhi was purchased by the husband of the plaintiff vide registered Sale Deed dated 1st January, 1983 from one Shri V.K. Mehta, the earlier owner of the said property and the leasehold rights in the land underneath the property were mutated in the records of the Land and Development Office (L&DO) from the name of the said V.K. Mehta to the name of the husband of the plaintiff;

(iii) that the husband of the plaintiff, vide registered Gift Deed dated 17th November, 2009, has gifted the said property to the plaintiff;

(iv) that since the plaintiff and her husband have been residing at Germany, the defendant, being a close relative, was allowed to reside in the property with a view to look after the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the plaintiff and who were also the parents of the defendant;

(v) that the plaintiff also executed a special power of attorney in favour of the defendant, for having executed the conveyance deed of freehold rights in land underneath the property from the L&DO in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant, acting as the attorney of the plaintiff, got the said conveyance deed registered on 20th January, 2011;

(vi) that the father-in-law of the plaintiff expired in the year 2002 and the mother-in-law of the plaintiff expired in the year 2012;

(vii) however, inspite of demise of the parents, the defendant has continued to reside in the property, despite repeated requests and reminders of the plaintiff to vacate the same.

2. The suit was entertained and the defendant contested the same by filing a written statement and also made a Counter Claim inter alia pleading that:

(i) the parents of the defendant along with their children including the defendant and the husband of the plaintiff used to reside in the family house at 6/2, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi;

(ii) as the house at Rajender Nagar in which the entire family used to live, was a small accommodation, the parents of the defendant and who were the parents-in-law of the plaintiff, decided to sell the Rajender Nagar house and buy a new plot by using the savings and build a bigger house;

(iii) the plot of land No. C-425, Defence Colony, New Delhi was identified in the year 1982;

(iv) as the parents of the defendant immediately did not have sufficient funds to purchase the new plot, they asked their three sons including the husband of the plaintiff and the defendant to contribute;

(v) the husband of the plaintiff, who was in Germany, transferred some funds for the said purpose and the defendant also gave some funds to the father; however, the third son did not contribute any funds;

(vi) Finally, the plot of land bearing No.C-425, Defence Colony, New Delhi was purchased in the year 1983, with majority of the funds of the parents of the defendant; para 13 of the written statement in this regard is as under:

“13. That even though most of the funds for the purchase of the plot of the suit property were given by the parties’ parents, the sale deed of the suit property was executed in the name of their middle son Mr. N.K. Butta, the husband of the plaintiff, for certain internal family reasons and the mutation was done in his name in the L&DO records. Mr. N.K. Butta had however contributed only a small amount towards the purchase of the suit property and did not make any contribution towards the construction of the house/super structure. The original sale deed and all other original documents pertaining to the suit property were with Mr. A.C. Butta and were never in the possession of Mr. N.K. Butta. Mr. N.K. Butta was always aware that suit property was owned by his parents and he is not the owner thereof. Much before the purchase of the suit property, Mr. N.K. Bu