Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Vijay Kumar Bansal - Appellant
Versus
Bhimsen Bansal & Ors. - Respondents
CS(OS) 6 of 2019
Decided On : 15-01-2024
Joint Family Business - Partition - CPC 1908 - Order VII Rule 11, Order XII Rule 6, Section 151 - Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a decree of suit based on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the CPC in the suit for Declaration, Partition, Possession and Permanent Injunction. The defendants sought rejection of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, claiming that the properties were not jointly owned and were purchased from their own individual funds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's claims of joint ownership and joint family business were not supported by sufficient evidence. The court rejected the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC.
Issues: The main issues were the ownership of the properties, existence of joint family business, and the applicability of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's claims of joint ownership and joint family business were not substantiated with concrete evidence. The court also emphasized the importance of pleading material facts and the significance of admissions in reaching a judgment.
Final Decision: The court rejected the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC.
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
I.A. 1962/2023 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, 1908) and I.A. 16121/2019 (under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, 1908 read with Section 151 CPC, 1908) with CS(OS) 6/2019
1. The plaintiff has sought decree of suit based on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the CPC in the suit for Declaration, Partition, Possession and Permanent Injunction filed by him.
2. On the other hand, the defendants have sought rejection of the suit of the plaintiff application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as "CPC").
3. The plaintiff has sought the partition in respect of following nine properties claiming to have been purchased from the joint works/business of the parties. The nine properties mentioned are as under:
Table A
| S.No | Property No. | Plaintiff's assertion |
| a. | Property No.3G, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi | occupation of defendants No. 1 to 3 jointly since 1995 |
| b. | Property No.5/3, Roop Nagar, Delhi-110007 | by defendant No. 2&3 |
| c. | Property No.118E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 | since 2000 jointly by defendant no. 2&3 |
| d. | Property No. 133-D, 2nd & 3rd Floor with Terrace, Kamla Nagar, Delhi | by the plaintiff since 2012 |
| e. | Property No.89E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 | Holding since 2009? of plaintiff's Wife and son |
| f. | Property No.39/14, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007 | by defendant No.2 |
| g. | Property No.174-D, which is a shop in Kamla Nagar, Delhi-7 | by defendant No.1 |
| h. | Property No.147E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 (garage) | holding by plaintiff |
| i. | Property bearing No.148E (Garage), Kamla Nagar, Delhi | holding by defendant No.2 |
4. The defendants have essentially not disputed the names in which the suit properties stand today, but has seriously refuted that these properties have been purchased from the joint funds. It has been explained that the joint family business which the parties were running under a Partnership Deed, was admittedly dissolved on 31.08.1982 and all the accounts qua the joint family business, were settled inter-se and released each other therefrom and from all proceedings, costs, claims and expenses in respect thereof.
5. Pertinently, the suit properties have all been purchased in the year 1987 onwards, i.e. after about 6 years of dissolution of the joint family business. Therefore on the face of it, the allegations of the property having been purchased from all joint family funds/business, is not tenable. This is evident from the Memo of parties filed by the plaintiff in the captioned suit, where it is categorically reflected that the defendants have their own separate businesses. In fact, this amounts to an admission on the part of the plaintiff that the defendants as well as the plaintiff have their own independent business and no business is being run jointly.
6. The defendants further asserted that no documents have been placed on record to prove that the property had been purchased from the income derived from the joint family business.
7. It is thus asserted, that none of the properties were jointly owned but are individually owned by the parties and purchased from their own individual funds. The defendants have explained their ownership in respect of six properties as under:
Table B
| S.No. | Description of property | Date of purchase | Owned by as per Registered documents submitted in the Court |
| i. | Property No. 3G, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi | 2.12.1987-Sale Deed dated 25.02.1988 | Sh. Ram Kumar Bansal (Defendant No.2) and Sh. Sushil Kumar Bansal (Defendant No.3) |
| ii. | Property No. 5/3, Roop Nagar, Delhi | Sale Deeds dated 1.8.2000 and 2.8.2000 | Sh. Ram Kumar Bansal (Defendant No.2) and Sh. Sushil Kumar Bansal (Defendant No.3) |
| iii | Property No. 118-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi | Sale Deed dated 28.3.2021, 5.4.2003 and 7.4.2003 | Sh. Ram Kumar Bansal (Defendant No.2), Sh. Sushil Kumar Bansal (Defendant No.3) |
| iv | Property No. 39/14, Shakti Nagar, Delhi | Sale Deed dated 18.3.2013 | Sh. Bhim Sen Bansal (Defendant No.1) and Smt. Kamla Bansal (Wife of Defendant No.1) |
| v | Property No. 171-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi | Sale Deed dated 22.7.2010 | Sh. Bhim Sen Bansal (Defendant |
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for parties to plead material facts and the significance of admissions in reaching a judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear pleadings and necessary averments for the existence of joint Hindu family/HUF properties, and the court's wide discretion....
The court established that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the existence of a joint family and joint properties, which was not met by the plaintiffs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that properties acquired from individual earnings of family members cannot be treated as joint family properties unless deliberate abandonment and ....
Properties cannot be presumed joint family properties unless proven to derive from sufficient income or surplus of ancestral properties.
No presumption of joint family property from family existence; claimant must prove acquisition from joint nucleus fund, especially for properties in daughters-in-law names via separate sale deeds wit....
At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court cannot go into the veracity of the pleas taken in the plaint or its truthfulness. The same can only be tested in a trial.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting joint family properties, and without specific pleading and evidence, properties cannot be presumed as joint family properties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
