2015 (9) TMI 1606 - HC - Benami Property

Whether the Suit as filed is barred under the provisions of the Benami Transactions Act? - Whether the Suit is barred by limitation? - Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Sabita s refusal to give evidence in the matter. Held that - the entirety of her case from start to finish demands evidence. She says that after the 1995-96 Family Arrangement the family business continued to be closely-held and run as a joint family quasi-partnership. This needs evidence. She says that no member of the Gopal Raheja Group ever asserted any rights independently as shareholder and/or Director but always acted in a fiduciary capacity and in trust for each other . That needs evidence. Sabita had the opportunity to establish this fiduciary relationship even outside the exclusions of the Benami Act and relying on the second part of Section 4(3)(b) i.e. other fiduciary capacity . She might have shown say that while assets were held in one name the benefits or income from those assets were shared in a 23 of 27 manner inconsistent with a sole or personal holding. Sabita repeatedly refers to intentions understandings practices and more. Of this there is no evidence whatever. All that I have is a surmise piled on conjecture wrapped up in speculation. - the first preliminary issue must be answered in the affirmative - The suit is barred under the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988. Time limitation - Held that - It is a mixed question of fact and law. No facts are proved as required by Section 9A of the CPC - In any case what appears to be material is that if according to the Plaintiff in 2005-2006 there was an agreement or understanding by which certain properties were transferred to Sandeep Raheja and if this was in derogation of the 1995-1996 Family Arrangement then that must surely be a starting point of limitation of this suit - it is not possible to hold in favour of the Plaintiff in the absence of necessary evidence. A mere pleading is insufficient - Without evidence a segregation of these claims is impossible. The second issue is also answered in the affirmative. The suit is barred by limitation. Suit dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Suit as filed is barred under the provisions of the Benami Transactions Act.
2. Whether the Suit is barred by limitation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Suit as filed is barred under the provisions of the Benami Transactions Act:
The court examined whether the suit was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The plaintiff, Sabita, claimed that the assets and properties of the "Gopal Raheja Group" were held in trust and that each family member had an equal undivided share. Sabita argued that the properties were held by individual members only for convenience and that the actual ownership was collective. However, the court noted that Sabita refused to provide evidence to support her claims, despite being given multiple opportunities. The court emphasized that allegations alone, without evidence, could not establish the existence of a trust or fiduciary relationship as required by Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Act. The court concluded that the suit was barred under the Benami Act as Sabita failed to prove the existence of an express trust or fiduciary relationship.

2. Whether the Suit is barred by limitation:
The court also addressed the issue of limitation. Sabita argued that the cause of action arose within three years of the suit, specifically pointing to events in January 2012 and April 2013. However, the court highlighted inconsistencies in Sabita's claims, noting that she mentioned several family arrangements and understandings dating back to 1995-1996 and subsequent years. Given these multiple claims and the lack of specific evidence, the court found that the suit was barred by limitation. The court emphasized that mere pleadings without evidence were insufficient to establish the timeliness of the suit.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the suit, concluding that it was barred both under the Benami Transactions Act and by limitation. The court emphasized the necessity of evidence to support claims of trust and fiduciary relationships and found that Sabita's refusal to provide such evidence was detrimental to her case. Consequently, the suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.