The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Benami Transaction (Prohibitions) Act, 1988, and the Limitation Act, 1963 in determining the validity of property transactions and the timeframe for challenging them.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

1. First appeal has been preferred against the Order dated 30.08.2022 vide which the suit of the appellant (plaintiff in the suit for partition and rendition of accounts), has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Facts in brief are that the three plaintiffs, who were sisters, filed a suit seeking partition of the property bearing no. N-32, Greater Kailash, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) against defendant no. 1, their brother and defendant nos. 2. 3 and 4 who are the legal heirs of the second brother, i.e. Dr. Devashish Kumar Sood.

3. The relevant facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the suit property was purchased by late Dr. Vyas Dev Sood, father of the parties on 27.04.1965 from his own funds/sources in the name of his wife, late Smt. Raj Kumari Sood for his own benefit, on which a two-storey house was consequently constructed from his own funds/sources. He died on 31.01.2001 while Smt. Raj Kumari Sood, the mother of the parties died in October 2004. They both died intestate and were survived by the three daughters, who are the plaintiffs and the two sons, who are respondent no. 1 and Dr. Devashish Kumar Sood, who is represented by his legal heirs. The disputes arose between the parties resulting in filing of the suit for partition and rendition of accounts.

4. An application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by the respondents/defendants seeking dismal of the suit essentially on two grounds:

i) The mother, Smt. Raj Kumari Sood, who was the sole owner of the suit property had executed two Gift Deeds dated 13.03.2000 and 11.03.2002 in favour of two sons, namely, defendant no. 1 and Dr. Devashish Kumar Sood. The relief claimed in the present suit is simplicitor for partition without challenging or seeking cancellation of the aforesaid two registered Gift Deeds about which the plaintiff were aware since the year 2009.

ii) The present suit has been filed only in the year 2020 and is barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

5. Admittedly, the plaintiffs had filed an earlier suit CS (OS) No. 1912/2009 for partition and rendition of accounts. The suit was contested and the written statements were filed by the defendants; however, pursuant to an Oral Understanding/Settlement between the parties in the year 2013, the plaintiffs agreed to not take any further action in the suit. Consequently, the suit was dismissed on account of default and non- prosecution vide Order dated 02.04.2013.

6. Thereafter, this present suit has been filed in the year 2020 seeking partition and rendition of accounts. The defendants in their Written Statement have taken the same defence as in earlier suit, of there being two registered Gift Deeds in favour of the defendants.

7. The plaintiff in the present suit has mentioned all these details in paragraph 17 of the plaint which reads as under:

"17.That it is pertinent to submit that the plaintiffs had previously in the year 2009 filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts against the Defendants before this Hon'ble Court being CS (OS) No. 1912 of 2009, wherein the pleadings were complete and the matter was fixed for hearing on 02-04-2013 for framing of issues. That in the written statement/s filed by the Defendants in the said suit, allegedly reliance was placed on two gift deeds dated March 2000 & March 2002 allegedly executed by the mother (Smt. Raj Kumari Sood) in favour of the brothers of Plaintiffs i.e. husband of Defendant No. 2 (first floor & above of the suit property) and also Defendant No. 1 (ground floor of the suit property), respectively. That in the replication filed by the Plaintiffs in the said suit, has denied the gift deed/s and raised pertinent questions regarding the authenticity, execution and existence thereof. That in any case since the suit property is itself benami and the true and correct owner was the father