SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(P&H) 4291

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
Rajesh Sachdeva - Appellant
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority - Respondent
RSA No. 870 of 2007
Decided On : 20-11-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate, with Deepak Thapar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Deepak Manchanda, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1; None, for the Respondent No. 2

Successful rebuttal of the statutory presumption under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, allowed the appellant to claim ownership of the property purchased in his wife's name.

Headnote:

Benami Transaction - Property Ownership Dispute - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, Sections 3, 4 - The court found that the appellant had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption that the property was purchased for the benefit of his wife, and therefore, he was entitled to claim the property as his own. The judgment and decree of the trial Court were restored, and the appellant was entitled to costs throughout.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration of his ownership over a plot of land and relief of mandatory injunction. He claimed that the property was a benami transaction in his wife's name and sought to establish his ownership.

Finding of the Court:

The trial Court found in favor of the appellant, holding that the transaction in his wife's favor was a benami transaction and decreed the suit in his favor. The first appellate Court reversed the decision, but the High Court restored the trial Court's judgment, allowing the appeal and setting aside the first appellate Court's decision.

Issues: The issues included the ownership of the plot, whether it was a benami transaction, and the entitlement to injunction relief. The court also considered the jurisdiction of the civil Court and the locus standi of the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the statutory presumption raised in Section 3(2) of the Act is successfully rebutted, the appellant would be entitled to the declaration sought by him, as well as the injunctions that he seeks. The court also considered the lack of defense from the wife and the absence of evidence to support the presumption that the property was purchased for her benefit.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court were set aside, restoring the trial Court's decision in favor of the appellant. The appellant was also entitled to costs throughout.

JUDGMENT

Amol Rattan Singh, J. - Vide this regular 2nd appeal, the plaintiff in a suit has challenged the judgment of the learned first appellate court (District Judge, Gurgaon), setting aside the decree issued in his favour by the trial Court, the suit instituted by him being one seeking a declaration of his ownership over the suit land, with a relief of mandatory injunction also sought, as also one of permanent injunction, the mandatory injunction being that his name be inserted as the owner and real purchaser of the suit property bearing plot no.1081, Sector-46, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, "by making the entire sale consideration thereof including all the installments and enhanced compensation amount"; and that the name of the first defendant (respondent no.2 herein), i.e. his wife, be considered to be only benami. He further sought that all the documents of the plot in question be handed over to him from the record of the first respondent herein, i.e. the Haryana Urban Development Authority (defendant no.2 in the suit), showing the plot to be in his (the plaintiffs') ownership.

The prohibitory injunction that the appellant had sought was against his wife, i.e. respondent no.2, restraining her from disposing of the property in any manner.

2. As per the case of the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred to as the appellant), respondent no.2 was his legally wedded wife. The original owner/allottee of the aforesaid plot, measuring 286 sq. metres, was one Romesh Kumar, who had transferred it in the name of one Parmod Kumar, from whom the appellant had purchased it in the year 1996, by making 'full and final payment', with a registered power of attorney also issued by the aforesaid Parmod Kumar on 03.09.1996.

As per the appellant, the entire consideration was paid out of his own pocket, in support of which bank account details had also been given by him in the plaint, but with the property transferred in the name of his wife, i.e. respondent no.2, vide a re-allotment letter issued by respondent no.1 on 08.12.1997, though the wife had never actually paid 'even a single rupee' towards the purchase of the plot.

As per the appellant, she, being a housewife, had no source of income prior to her marriage or thereafter, and therefore, the plot was actually a benami transaction in her name, with her always treating him (the appellant) to be the full-fledged owner thereof.

3. In the month of June 2004, when the appellant decided to construct a house over the plot, he approached the first respondent (HUDA) to enquire about any dues pending, upon which he was told that Rs. 15,000/- still remained to be cleared as the final amount due against the plot.

He therefore made a request to respondent no.2 to sign the requisite affidavits and papers but, as contended, she avoided doing so and kept delaying the matter and in fact, her attitude thereafter became arrogant and disrespectful towards him, and eventually she refused to sign the papers or transfer the plot in his favour.

As per the appellant, she even took away the original documents from the almirah and 'challenged the title of the plaintiff', allegedly out of her greed and lust for the property.

Hence, the suit was filed, essentially against the contended 'usurpation' of the plot by the appellants' wife, she not being the real purchaser thereof (according to the appellant).

4. Upon being put to notice, she however, i.e. respondent no.2 herein (defendant no.1), did not appear before the trial Court and was consequently proceeded against ex parte.

5. Respondent no.1 (defendant no.2), i.e. the Haryana Urban Development Authority, appeared and filed a written statement, taking firstly the usual preliminary objections of non-maintainability of the suit, mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties and locus of the appellant etc.

On merits, the said respondent refuted the claim of the appella

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top