Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 3133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Shakuntala Devi – Plaintiff
Versus
Vinod K. Dayal and Others – Defendants
CS (OS) Nos. 1640, 2441, 3631 of 2014 and I.A. Nos. 15281, 20821, 23640 of 2014, 1003, 1004 of 2015, 6501 of 2017
Decided On : 02-11-2018
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Mr. Rohan Malik, Mr. Ashish Verma.
For the Defendants : Mr. Brij Bhushan Gupta, Mr. Amiet Andley, Mr. Udai Khanna, Mr. Apoorv Gupta.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1, 2, 4, Order 12 Rule 6, Order 7 Rule 11 - Prohibition of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Section 4(3)(b) - Property
- Daughter-in-law - Fiduciary relation - Scope of - Relationship between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law - Held to be fiduciary in nature - Daughter-in-law can be held to be a trustee of the mother-in-law - Sudha Dayal being the daughter in law of Smt. Shakuntala Devi was in a fiduciary relationship with her mother in law - Property in trust on her behalf for the benefit of the entire family.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1, 2, 4, Order 12 Rule 6, Order 7 Rule 11 - Possession - Declaration - Mutation - Cancellation - Declaration granted in her favour of sole owner - Declaration would ensure to all her legal heirs and not only to Mr. Vinay Dayal - Disputes inter se the legal heirs is not the subject matter of litigations - All questions as to the legality, validity and enforceability of the said will are left open - Relief of possession is not liable to be granted - Permanent injunction is granted restraining all the parties from alienating - Mutation in the name of Mr. Mayank Dayal is cancelled - Suit is decreed in terms of Prayer clause 1(b) and (c) - Relinquishment Deed executed in favour of Mayank Dayal would continue to enure to his benefit.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
1. The question that arises in these three suits is whether the daughter-in-law could be considered as trustee or a person standing in a fiduciary capacity, who is holding property for the benefit of her mother-in-law as per Section 4(3)(b) of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter, Benami Transaction Act).
2. The three suits are summarized herein below:
(A) Suit No. 1640/2014
3. This suit filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi was the first suit in point of time seeking declaration and possession as also mesne profits and injunction in respect of the property bearing No. C-216, Sarvodaya Cooperative Housing Society, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi admeasuring 498 Sq. Yards (hereinafter, suit property). The daughter in law of the Plaintiff-Smt. Shakuntala Devi was Late Smt. Sudha Dayal, wife of Shri Vinod K. Dayal. Smt. Shakuntala Devi was married to Shri Maheshwar Dayal. They had three children i.e. Shri Vinay Dayal, Smt. Veena Aggarwal and Shri Vinod Dayal.
4. During the pendency of the suit, Smt. Shakuntala Devi has passed away and her second son and sole daughter are impleaded as her legal heirs and hence are the Plaintiffs in the present suit.
5. The case pleaded by Smt. Shakuntala Devi is that the suit property was allotted to one Shri Balbir Singh Goel, brother of Smt. Sudha Dayal. She wanted to purchase the property for herself and for the benefit of her family members. On the suggestion of Shri Balbir Singh Goel, she decided to purchase the suit property from him. Since, as per the norms of the Sarvodaya Cooperative Housing Society, the transfer of a property was only permitted amongst blood relations, it is her case that a decision was taken to purchase the plot from Shri Balbir Singh Goel in the name of her daughter in law i.e. Shri Goel’s sister, Smt. Sudha Dayal. Thus, in the Sarvodaya Cooperative Housing Society the nomination of Smt. Sudha Dayal was made in respect of the suit property, pursuant to a gift deed executed by Shri Balbir Singh Goel in favour of his sister Smt. Sudha Dayal. It is the case of Smt. Shakuntala Devi that the sale consideration was to be paid to Shri Goel and same amount was to be deposited with the DDA. Thus, a joint account was opened by Smt. Shakuntala Devi with her daughter in law Smt. Sudha Dayal. To the said joint account, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was transfered by Smt. Shakuntala Devi from her own saving’s account. From the said sum, a sum of Rs. 14,000/- was paid to Shri Goel initially and thereafter, a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid. In this manner, it was the Plaintiff i.e. Smt. Shakuntala Devi who paid the entire consideration for the suit property. Upon the receipt of the consideration, Shri Goel transferred and nominated his sister in the records of the society and a perpetual sub-lease was also executed in favour of Smt. Sudha Dayal vide document dated 3rd April, 1973 by the DDA.
6. It is, thus, claimed that in this manner the property was purchased by Smt. Shakuntala Devi in the name of her daughter in law. Thereafter, it is averred that the construction was carried out by the Plaintiff along with her husband. The family of the Plaintiff, including her younger son Shri Vinay Dayal and his family, have been living in the suit property since 1976. When Smt. Sudha Dayal fell ill, at the request of her husband Shri Vinod Dayal they were allowed to shift to the first floor of the property in 1987. In fact, Smt. Sudha Dayal passed away in January, 1987, whereafter, her husband and two minor children moved into the first floor of the suit property. In this manner, the Plaintiff claims that the property belongs to her, though it was registered in the name of her daughter in law. Due to strained relations between the older son i.e. Shri Vinod Dayal and his children with the Plaintiff, she does not wish that they live in the s
