Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jayant Nath, J.
ANITA GUPTA - Appellant
Vs.
SURESH DUDANI AND ANOTHER - Respondent
Civil Suit (Os) No. 392 of 2017
Decided On : 18-02-2019
Payal Jain, Adv., Rakhi Dubey, Adv., A.V. Bagur, Adv.
The Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 prohibits suits to enforce rights in respect of property held benami, and vague, unsubstantiated pleas are not sufficient to establish a defense.
Headnote:
Order 12 Rule 6 CPC - Decree - Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Transfer of Property Act, Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988] - The court discussed the source of funds for the purchase of the property, the legality and validity of the Gift Deed, and the rights of the defendants in the suit property. The court highlighted the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 and emphasized that the defendant's claim to the property was barred by the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction and possession of a property in a property dispute. The defendants were involved in a matrimonial dispute, and the legality and validity of a Gift Deed were challenged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's claims were vague, unsubstantiated, and lacked material particulars. The court held that the defendant's claim to the property was barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988.
Issues: The issues involved the source of funds for the property purchase, the legality of the Gift Deed, and the rights of the defendants in the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the defendant's claim to the property was barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, and highlighted the importance of specific and substantiated pleadings in legal proceedings.
Final Decision: A decree was passed in favor of the plaintiff for possession of the suit property, and the defendant was given nine months to vacate the property.
Jayant Nath, J.
I A No. 1347/2019
This application is filed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree in favour of the plaintiff.
2. Learned counsel for defendant No.2 has filed his reply in court which is taken on record.
3. Present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from parting with possession in respect of the property No. 11/394, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi-110087. A decree of possession is also sought regarding the suit property.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the registered owner of the property No. 11/394, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi and is presently a resident of USA. It was pleaded that the defendants with the parents were residing at another property at Sunder Vihar which was owned by Sh. S.S.S.Dudani, the father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The shares of all the members of the family were said to have been settled. It was agreed that the plaintiff shall be the sole owner of the suit property and accordingly, the plaintiff became the registered owner by registered document dated 29.08.2007. The defendants were given a right to reside in the property as a licensee w.e.f. 29.08.2007. In August 2010, the plaintiff terminated the license. Hence, the present suit.
5. In written statement, defendant No. 1 has supported the case of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 who is the wife of defendant No. 1 has opposed the present suit. In her written statement, she states that at the time of her marriage, she was working as a stenographer in the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. She had a large amount of personal savings which she had accumulated before her marriage as she virtually had no expense and was saving her salary. Further, she was given substantial Stridhan. From February 1989 i.e. from her marriage till 2006, she gave her entire salary to her mother-in-law when she was in India and thereafter to defendant No.1. Defendant No. 1 is said to have taken away the entire cash component of the Stridhan belonging to defendant No.2. It is further stated that defendant No. 1 would take away the entire salary and other allowances of defendant No. 2 and put it into his personal accounts. Defendant No. 1 was an official of a public sector bank and stated to be knowledgeable about money management. Hence, defendant No. 2 is said to have implicit faith in him and agreed to the game plan of defendant No. 1 to quickly purchase a house. In 2000, it is stated that defendant No. 1 indicated his desire to purchase the suit property for Rs. 9 lakhs. Defendant No. 2 allowed defendant No. 1 to utilize the funds from her savings and also raised additional amount. It is stated that defendant No.1 did not have a single penny with him when he purchased the suit property. Subsequently, it is pleaded that defendant No. 2 was served with a notice in a case filed by the plaintiff before ADJ (West), Tis Hazari Court titled as Anita Gupta vs. Suresh Dudani & Anr. It is stated that on service of this notice defendant No. 2 came to know about a purported gift deed said to have been executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff on 29.08.2007. Hence, defendant No. 2 has filed a separate suit in 2013 challenging the gift deed and so called family settlement which was filed in the court of ADJ, Tis Hazari but has now been transferred to this court.
6. The plea taken in paragraph 18 of the written statement is as follows:-
"18. Thereafter in the year 2000 the Defendant No: 1 purchased the suit scheduled property with the funds made available by the Answering Defendant No: 2 called as 'family funds'. It is admitted fact that the Defendant No: 1 did not have a single penny with him when he purchased the Suit Scheduled Property. While denying, but even it is true, as claimed by Defendant No: 1 that the entire amount required for purchasing the Suit Scheduled Property has come from his late father, Sh. S.S. Dudani, it cannot be that it could have been acquired so acquire
