Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
Smt. Kanchan Jain and another - Appellants
Vs.
Babita Jain - Respondent
RSA No. 1504 of 2016
Decided On : 07-09-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Naveen Bawa
The main legal point established is the interpretation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and its exceptions, as well as the concept of fiduciary relationship in property transactions.
Headnote:
Benami Transaction - Property Partition - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Sections 3, 4 - The court discussed the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and its exceptions, and held that the property in question was not a benami transaction. The court also considered the issue of mesne profits and held the plaintiff entitled to a 1/4th share of the rental value of the property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought partition of a property in which she had a 1/4th share and claimed mesne profits. The defendants contended that the property was purchased by the late husband of defendant no.1 in the name of the parties to the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property was not a benami transaction and held the plaintiff entitled to a 1/4th share of the rental value of the property. The first appeal was dismissed, and the court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues included entitlement to separate possession, permanent injunction, mesne profits, non-joinder of necessary parties, and proper valuation for court fee and jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and its exceptions, as well as the concept of fiduciary relationship. It also considered the lack of exception for property purchased from one person's funds in the name of another.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgments of the lower courts, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
This is the second appeal of the defendants in a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, seeking partition of the suit property by metes and bounds and separate possession thereof to the extent of her 1/4th share in the property, which is a building standing on land measuring 154 square yards, bearing No. B.VII 395 (old) & B.VII 269 (New) in Mohalla Mullan Shakoor, Ludhiana.
The plaintiff further sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature and construction of the building or alienating it in any manner. Still further, she had prayed for mesne profits qua her share in the suit property.
2. The suit having been decreed in her favour and the first appeal filed by the present appellants having been dismissed, the present second appeal has been filed.
3. The facts, as taken from the judgments of the learned Courts below, are that as per the respondent-plaintiff, she and the defendants are joint owners in possession of the suit property, with she and defendant no.2 being owners to the extent of a 1/4th share each and defendant no.1 having a half share in the suit property.
Defendant no.1 is the mother-in-law of the plaintiff and defendant no.2, the plaintiff and defendant no.2 being married to two brothers.
4. It was contended by the plaintiff that after her marriage on 23.09.1990, she lived happily in her matrimonial home for some time, alongwith her husband, the defendants and their families. Thereafter, allegedly, the plaintiffs' husband as well as the defendants and defendant no.2s' husband, started maltreating the plaintiff on account of insufficient dowry, further stating that she was not beautiful, whereas her husband was a smart and handsome boy.
Despite several attempts at mediation etc., eventually, on 25.08.2000, allegedly an attempt was made to pressurise her into accepting a divorce from her husband, and she was turned out of her matrimonial home. Eventually, an FIR was lodged for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 406/498-A/120-B IPC on 10.04.2001, and her husband also filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
5. In the above situation, the plaintiff sought a partition of the suit property in which she had a 1/4th share, and upon the defendants not agreeing to give any such possession, she filed the suit.
She also claimed that the rental value of the property was Rs.30,000/- per month and that she was accordingly entitled to mesne profits to the extent of 1/4th thereof.
6. Upon notice issued to them, the defendants appeared and filed their written statements with the usual preliminary objections of non-joinder of necessary parties etc. and on merits, contended that the property was purchased by the late husband of defendant no.1 (father-in-law of the plaintiff) Shri Chaman Lal, in the name of the parties to the suit and that the entire sale consideration was paid by him.
As such, it was contended that the plaintiff having made no contribution towards the purchase of the property, she could claim no right in it.
7. Upon the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to separate possession by the parties with respect to the suit property as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit from the defendant? If so, at what rate and from which party? OPP
4. Whether suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPP
5. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
6. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi or cause of action to file this suit? OPD
7. Relief.
8. The plaintiff examined herself and her father Darshan Kumar Jain, and exhibited a copy of the sale deed of the suit property and the FIR lodged, as Exs. P1 and P2 respectively.
The defendants examin
