2010 (8) TMI 1132 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to claim possession of the suit property without returning to India.
2. Construction of the bequeathing clause in the Will.
3. Impact of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act on the suit claim.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entitlement to Claim Possession Without Returning to India
The appellant argued that the plaintiff, a Singapore citizen, must return to India to make a valid demand for possession as per the Will (Ex.A-2). The court found that the Will's intention was for the properties to reach the plaintiff, with the appellant managing them until then. The court held that the filing of the suit itself constituted a valid demand, rejecting the appellant's claim that the plaintiff's return was a precondition for possession.

Issue 2: Construction of the Bequeathing Clause in the Will
The appellant contended that the Will required the plaintiff to return to India to demand possession. The court, upon reading the Will, found no such condition. The Will's relevant portion indicated that the appellant should manage the property until the plaintiff demanded possession. The court concluded that the plaintiff's legal actions and persistent requests constituted a valid demand, thus entitling him to possession.

Issue 3: Impact of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act
The appellant argued that the plaintiff, as a foreign citizen, could not hold property in India without Reserve Bank of India permission, citing the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The court referenced judgments indicating that while violations of the Act could lead to penalties, they did not invalidate the title to the property. The court held that the appellant had no locus standi to raise this defense, affirming that the plaintiff had a valid title to the property despite potential Act violations.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It ruled that the plaintiff had made a valid demand for possession and had a valid title to the property, unaffected by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The appellant's arguments were rejected, and the plaintiff was entitled to possession and future mesne profits. No costs were awarded.