9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2103 - HC - Indian LawsPartition of suit property - owner of first and second floor with terrace rights of the suit property - entitlement to partition and declaration sought or not - suit barred by law or not. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of first and second floor with terrace rights of the suit property bearing number F-10, East of Kailash, New Delhi? - HELD THAT - Though Shanti Swaroop, who was defendant No.1 in CS(OS) No.3/1992 has died and has been substituted by Madhu and Anil, but Satish, even after the demise of Shanti Swaroop, has not claimed partition of the said property as an heir of Shanti Swaroop. Thus, the need to put CS(OS) No.3/1992 to trial, for partition of the property amongst Satish, Anil, Sunil and Madhu as heirs of Shanti Swaroop, who admittedly was the sole owner of the property, is not felt. What perhaps prevailed, while reserving order was, if it were to be held that ISKCON, under the document, is not entitled to the entire property, it is not entitled to seek Letters of Administration. However, it was lost sight of that even if ISKCON were to be not entitled to the entire property, it is in any case entitled to 20% share in the sale proceeds of the property and since none of the other beneficiaries under the document have sought Letters of Administration, ISKCON, even as one of the beneficiaries, is entitled to apply therefor. I would however implore the counsel for ISKCON to consider, whether in view of aforesaid aspects, a proceeding seeking Letters of Administration is the most appropriate proceeding for adjudication thereof or some other expeditious proceeding, where adjudication of all such aspects can be made, is to be initiated, so that valuable time is saved. Even if the document is proved to be the Will of Shanti Swaroop, another proceeding should not be required to determine the aforesaid aspects. Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the first and second floors with terrace rights of property No.F-10, East of Kailash, New Delhi. 2. Entitlement to partition and declaration sought by the plaintiff. 3. Whether the suit is barred by law as alleged by the defendant. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Ownership of the First and Second Floors with Terrace Rights The plaintiff, Satish Kumar Gupta (Satish), claimed sole ownership of the first and second floors with terrace rights of property No.F-10, East of Kailash, New Delhi. He argued that he contributed substantially to the purchase and construction of the property, and his father, Shanti Swaroop Gupta (Shanti Swaroop), had promised to transfer the property to him. Satish also cited possession of original title documents and General Power of Attorneys (GPAs) executed in his favor. However, the court noted that the sale deed was in the name of Shanti Swaroop, and there was no registered document transferring title to Satish. The court referenced the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, which bars suits to enforce rights in respect of properties held benami. The court concluded that Satish's claim was barred by the Benami Act and dismissed the suit, stating that contributions to the purchase price do not confer ownership. Issue 2: Entitlement to Partition and Declaration Satish also sought a declaration of ownership of half of the ground floor after partition. The court found that this claim was based on the same arguments as the claim for the first and second floors. Since the primary claim was dismissed, the request for partition and declaration of ownership of half of the ground floor also failed. The court noted that Satish had not claimed partition as an heir of Shanti Swaroop, who was the sole owner of the property. Issue 3: Suit Barred by Law The court examined whether the suit was barred by law, particularly under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The court reiterated that the Act prohibits suits to enforce any right in respect of property held benami. Since Satish's suit was filed after the Act came into force, it was barred by Section 4 of the Benami Act. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in R. Rajagopal Reddy Vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan, which clarified that the Benami Act applies to suits filed after its enactment, even if the transactions occurred before the Act came into force. Additional Observations: The court also addressed the involvement of ISKCON, which claimed a share in the property based on Shanti Swaroop's Will. The Will directed that 20% of the sale proceeds of the property be given to ISKCON and included a clause that if the sons failed to sell the property within six months, the entire property would be donated to ISKCON. The court expressed concerns about the validity of such a clause but noted that in testamentary jurisdiction, the court's role is limited to determining the validity of the Will, not interpreting its clauses. The court allowed ISKCON's application for Letters of Administration and suggested that ISKCON consider whether a different proceeding might be more appropriate for resolving all related issues. Conclusion: The court dismissed CS(OS) No.3/1992 filed by Satish for declaration of ownership and partition, citing the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The court allowed Test.Cas. No.92/2014 filed by ISKCON to proceed, recognizing ISKCON's entitlement to apply for Letters of Administration as a beneficiary under Shanti Swaroop's Will. The court scheduled further proceedings for Test.Cas. No.92/2014 and suggested exploring more suitable proceedings for comprehensive adjudication of the issues.
|
