2012 (5) TMI 809 - HC - Benami Property

Issues Involved:
1. Application for exemption.
2. Substitution of legal heir.
3. Delay in re-filing and filing the appeal.
4. Bar of suit by Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
5. Bar of suit by limitation.

Summary:

1. Application for Exemption:

C.M. No. 8372/2012 (Exemption) - Application allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of.

2. Substitution of Legal Heir:

C.M. No. 8337/2012 (U/O 22 Rule 4 CPC) - Since respondent No.2 is stated to have died after the filing of the appeal in the Registry, the application is allowed, and the legal heir of respondent No.2 as stated in para 4 of this application, is brought on record. C.M. stands disposed of.

3. Delay in Re-filing and Filing the Appeal:

C.M. No. 8336/2012 (Delay in re-filing) and C.M. No. 8335/2012 (Delay in filing) - Though, in my opinion, prima facie, there does not appear to be a good ground for condonation of huge delay of 202 days in re-filing the appeal, since however, I have heard the appeal on merits, I am allowing the application for delay in filing and re-filing the appeal subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of.

4. Bar of Suit by Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988:

RFA No. 207/2012 - The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 2.4.2011 dismissing the suit and/or rejecting the plaint by holding that the same is barred by Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and also by limitation.

The disputes center around the ownership of a flat No. C-1/F, DDA Flats, Munirika, Delhi. The appellant/plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property, but the title documents stand in the name of defendant No.1/respondent No.1 since 1981.

The trial court held that the suit was barred by Section 4 of the Benami Act and by limitation, noting that the appellant had previously filed a suit in 1984 seeking to declare himself as the actual owner, which was withdrawn in 1987. The present suit was filed after 23 years in 2010.

The court observed that Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Act protects rights where the property is held in a fiduciary capacity, but this does not apply to the present case as the relationship alleged does not meet the criteria of a fiduciary capacity as per the Benami Act.

The court also noted that the Benami Act brought an end to the ownership rights of an actual owner against the benami owner, and the provisions of Sections 81, 82, and 94 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, which previously helped the plaintiff, were repealed by Section 7 of the Benami Act.

5. Bar of Suit by Limitation:

The trial court rightly held the suit to be barred by limitation. The appellant had claimed title in the suit property by way of a suit filed in 1984, which was withdrawn in 1987. The present suit filed in 2010 is beyond the prescribed period of 12 years for filing a suit for possession of an immovable property as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court noted that the right to sue first accrued in 1984 or 1986, and the present suit filed in 2010 is ex facie barred by limitation.

In view of the above, the court found no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 2.4.2011. The present appeal, being without any merit, is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →