Point of Law: Section 4 (2) bars a claim or defence permitting "real owner" of such property and has been held from saying that property is benami.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants, who are the daughter and son-in-law of plaintiff/respondent no.1, are in first appeal before this Court, laying challenge to the decree passed by the learned Trial Court, declaring the respondent no.1 as the owner of flat No.511, CGHS Supriya Apartments, Plot No. 20, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi. The appellants also assail the consequential direction issued to them to hand over peaceful possession of the suit property to the respondent no.1.

2. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, it would be apposite to note in brief, the factual matrix as emerging from the record. The appellant nos.1 and 2 are the married daughter and son-in-law of the respondents. The marriage of the appellant no.1 with appellant no.2 was solemnized in 2005 and they were blessed with a son in April 2007. While the respondent no.1/plaintiff is the father of appellant no.1, the respondent no.2 is the mother of appellant no.1, arrayed as defendant no.1 before the learned Trial Court.

3. It is the common case of the parties that the respondent no.1 was sent to jail on 25.01.1995 after being convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC. At the time of his going to jail, all his three children were minor, with the appellant no.1, the eldest daughter, being 17 years of age. While in jail, the respondent no.1 availed of parole on a number of occasions. He was finally released from jail on 16.07.2009, after completion of his life sentence of 14 years and has since been residing with his son Nitin at flat No.102, Supriya Apartments, Dwarka, New Delhi.

4. During the period of his incarceration, the respondent no.1, while on parole, sold certain properties, including some ancestral property held by him in Village Tajpur Najafgarh. Part of these sale proceeds were given by him to the appellant no.1, respondent no.2, as also to his son, Nitin. While, the respondent no.1 was still in jail, the appellant no.1 on 03.11.2007, vide a registered sale deed, purchased the suit property for a sum of Rs. 17 lakhs, in her exclusive name.

5. More than seven years after he had been released from jail, the respondent no.1, on 10.11.2016, filed the instant suit against the two appellants, as also his wife/respondent no.2, seeking a declaration to the effect that he was the owner, or in the alternative, co-owner, of the suit property. The respondent no.1 also sought permanent and mandatory injunction against the appellants and respondent no.2 to hand over peaceful possession of the suit property to him. The parties are hereinafter being referred to as per their position before the learned Trial Court.

6. In his plaint, the respondent no.1, as the plaintiff, claimed that the suit property, though in the name of the appellant no.1/defendant no.2, had been purchased entirely out of his funds, with the sum of Rs.8 lakhs towards the sale consideration being paid directly from his bank account, and the remaining sale consideration having been paid out of the sale proceeds of Tajpur land, as also funds transferred to the accounts of the defendants on different occasions by him, and therefore, he was the sole owner of the same. It was further averred that the defendants, in connivance with each other, were trying to now throw him out of the suit property. It was also averred that the defendants were trying to sell the property, which fact came to his knowledge only on 14.10.2016 through some property dealers and, therefore, he was compelled to approach the Court to seek a declaration that he was the owner/co-owner of the property.

7. Through a common and joint written statement, all the three defendants, i.e., the wife, daughter and son-in-law of respondent no.1/plaintiff contested the suit. In the written statement it was averred that the suit was not maintainable as being barred by limitation. The suit property having been purchased in 2007, and the suit having been filed on 10.11.2016, after a period of almost 9 years had passed since the property was