Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17676
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J
SHRI CHARANJEET SINGH & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
SHRI HARVINDER SINGH & ANR. – Respondent
CS(OS) 486/2018 & I.A. Nos. 13318/2018, 15952/2018, 456/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pawanjit S. Bindra, Mr. Lakshay Dhamija, Mr. Sahil Dutta
For the Respondents: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Mr. Mayank Kumar, Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Mr. Deepak Vohra, Ms. Shilpa Dewan
The court ruled that where a property is purchased in the name of one individual with partnership funds, claims of joint ownership based on fiduciary relationships may be barred under the Benami Transactions Act.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Benami Transactions Act, 1988 - Sections 2(9)(A)(ii) and 4 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 59 - Plaint rejected for disclosing no cause of action and being time-barred - Plaintiffs allege that property acquired by defendant No.2 from partnership funds - No evidence or specifics presented in the plaint - Claims of fiduciary capacity and a family settlement not substantiated - Court held property belongs solely to defendant No.2 - No valid claim under Benami Act nor limitation exception articulated - Application under Order VII Rule 11 allowed, plaint rejected. (Paras 6, 14, 15)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's final decision on the plaint (Para 1 , 8 , 18 , 19) |
| 2. nature of property ownership and claims (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding the rejection of the plaint (Para 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's evaluation of claims and defenses (Para 14 , 15 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.
I.A.15951/2018 (Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC)
By way of the present application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („CPC‟), defendant No.2 seeks rejection of the plaint inter-alia on the grounds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and that it is also barred by law.
2. In the present suit, the plaintiffs have made the following prayers :
“(i) Pass a decree of declaration declaring that the property bearing No. F-61, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi is joint property of Plaintiffs and Defendants, both have 50% share each in the same.
(ii) Pass a decree of cancellation in favour of Plaintiffs and against Defendants thereby canceling the sale deed dated 27.03.1992 Registered in the office of Sub Registrar Delhi bearing registration No.18570, in Addl. Book No. I, Vol. No. 5686 on Page No. 109 to122 registered on 27.03.1992 in the name of Defendant No.2.
(iii) Appoint a Local Commissioner with directions to suggest the mode of partition bearing No.F-61, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi by metes and bounds and to submit a report before this Hon‟ble Court thereby declaring the share of the Plaintiffs in the same whereupon, this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to pass a Preliminary Decree.
(iv) Pass a final decree of partition on the basis of report submitted by learned Local Commissioner and the Plaintiffs be put in possession of their share in the aforesaid properties.
(v) Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents, employees, representatives or any body acting through them or on their behalf from in any manner whatsoever creating lien, mortgage, encumbrances, creating third party interest and dealing with or disposing of a part or whole of Property bearing No.F-61, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
(vi) Grant costs.
(vii) Grant such other, further relief/s in the facts and circumstances of the case as this Hon‟ble Court may deem just and equitable in favour of the Plaintiffs.”
3. Briefly, it is the plaintiffs‟ allegation that property bearing No. F-61 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi („subject property‟) is the „joint property‟ of the plaintiffs and the defendants, both sides having a 50% share therein. In that respect, the plaintiffs seek a decree of declaration. Furthermore, it is the plaintiffs‟ case that Sale Deed dated 27.03.1992 registered in favour of defendant No.2 be cancelled since defendant No.2 is not the sole or absolute owner of the subject property. In that behalf, the plaintiffs seek a decree of cancellation of the said sale deed. Furthermore, the plaintiffs seek a decree of partition and separate possession in respect of their respective shares in the subject property, based on a mode of partition to be worked-out by appointing a local commissioner.
4. The plaintiffs further seek a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from creating any lien, mortgage, encumbrance or third-party rights, titles or interests, or otherwise dealing with and disposing the whole or any part of the subject property.
5. The paragraphs of the plaint that are relevant for deciding the present application are the following :
“8. As such, from the funds of aforesaid partnership, Property bearing No. F-61, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi was purchased on 27.3.1992 from its erstwhile owners Mrs. Devinder Sahni and Ms. Pritpal Kaur Chandhok. The said property was purchased in the name of Defendant No.2, namely Smt. Bhupinder Kaur Sahni, wife of Defendant No.1. Though the aforesaid property was purchased out of the partnership funds, the Defendant No.2 held the same in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of members of the family
