$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 27.01.2026 Date of decision: 12.02.2026 + RFA(OS) 89/2015 AMAR N GUGNANI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Rehan Bhasin & Ms. Aparajita Jha, Advs.

versus NARESH KUMAR GUGNANI (SINCE DECEASED THR LRS)

SUNITA GUGNANI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pravir Kumar Jain & Mr. Arjav Jain, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

J U D G M E N T

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Rules, assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2015, passed by learned Single Judge, (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”), whereby the Suit of the Appellant was dismissed being barred by the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Benami Act”).

2. Briefly stated facts are that the Appellant, presently a resident of United States of America (USA), instituted a Civil Suit being CS (OS) No. 478 of 2004 seeking, inter alia, reliefs of declaration, eviction, recovery of damages, rendition of accounts and permanent and mandatory injunctions in respect of property bearing No. 33, Uday Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”).

3. It is the case of the Appellant that he left India in the year 1962 for higher studies and thereafter pursued his education and career in the USA. During the course of his stay abroad, he remitted substantial funds to India and entrusted the same to his father, late Shri Jai Gopal Gugnani, for being held and utilized for the benefit of the Appellant. Subsequent thereto, on the suggestion of his father, the Appellant decided to purchase a plot of land in New Delhi for construction of a residential house. Acting on this advice, and as the Appellant was based abroad and unable to manage his affairs in India, it was agreed that the plot would be acquired in the name of his father, who would hold the same for and on behalf of the Appellant. Pursuant thereto, a perpetual lease deed dated 09.05.1973 in respect of the suit property measuring approximately 425.25 sq. mts., was executed by the Delhi Development Authority in favour of the Appellant’s father and was registered on 21.08.1974.The Appellant categorically pleaded in his plaint that the entire consideration for purchase of the plot, as also the funds for construction raised thereon, were provided by him. After completion of construction, the property was let out and was managed by the Appellant’s father, for and on behalf of the Appellant.

4. Thereafter, disputes arose with the tenant on account of non-payment of rent and legal proceedings for eviction were initiated. In June 1990, the Appellant’s father suffered a stroke and he subsequently passed away on

28.04.1992.

5. After the demise of his father, as the Appellant was residing in the USA, he executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his younger brother (the Respondent, since deceased), authorising him to pursue eviction proceedings and manage the property. Disputes thereafter arose between the Appellant and his younger brother regarding management of the suit property and rendition of accounts. The Appellant revoked the Power of Attorney and, upon failure of the Respondent to comply with the demands raised in the legal notice dated

05.05.2003, instituted the subject suit in the year 2004.

6. Upon service of summons, the Respondent filed a written statement denying the Appellant’s claim and raised a preliminary objection that the suit was barred under the provisions of the Benami Act. The Appellant filed replication controverting the said objection.

7. On completion of pleadings, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 11.08.2008, framed issues, including Issue No. 1 as to whether the suit was barred by the provisions of the Benami Act, and placed the onus of the said issue upon his younger brother, the respondent.

8. During