2009 (8) TMI 1254 - HC - Benami Property

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Contempt of Court
2. Maintenance under Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA)
3. Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1998
4. Validity of interim orders
5. Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Detailed Analysis:

1. Contempt of Court:
The Plaintiff filed a contempt petition against the Defendants for willful disobedience of the interim order dated 15th February 2007, which restrained the Defendants from alienating or creating third-party interests in certain properties. The Defendants argued that the interim order was not continued beyond 22nd May 2008, and thus, the sale deed executed on 9th June 2008 was not in violation. The Court noted that the interim order was not extended beyond 22nd May 2008 and hence, the sale was not in contempt. Regarding the property at Aya Nagar, the Court found no evidence of a sham transaction and noted that FMPL, the entity involved, was not a party to the suit or contempt petition. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed, and the contempt notices were discharged.

2. Maintenance under Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA):
The Plaintiff sought maintenance under Section 18 HAMA, claiming rights to the properties held by her in-laws. The Court observed that under Section 18 HAMA, a wife is entitled to claim maintenance only from her husband and not from her in-laws. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel, the Court reiterated that in-laws cannot be legally liable to maintain a daughter-in-law from their property. Consequently, the Plaintiff's claim for maintenance against Defendants 2 and 3 was found to be untenable.

3. Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1998:
The Plaintiff alleged that the properties were held benami by Defendant No.3 for Defendant No.1. The Court referred to Section 4 of the Benami Act, which bars any suit to enforce rights in respect of benami properties. The Court found no evidence or pleading to substantiate that Defendant No.3 held the property in a fiduciary capacity for Defendant No.1. Therefore, the Plaintiff's claims were barred under the Benami Act, and no relief could be granted regarding the properties owned by Defendant No.3 and FMPL.

4. Validity of Interim Orders:
The interim order dated 15th February 2007 was initially continued but not extended beyond 22nd May 2008. The Court emphasized that interim orders must be explicitly extended to remain effective, as held in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana. Since the interim order was not extended beyond 22nd May 2008, the subsequent sale of the property did not violate any court order.

5. Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC:
Defendants 2 and 3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint for not disclosing a cause of action against them. The Court agreed that the suit did not disclose any cause of action for maintenance against the in-laws under Section 18 HAMA. Additionally, the suit was barred under the Benami Act, and the Plaintiff failed to seek cancellation of the title deeds. Consequently, the plaint was rejected vis-`a-vis Defendants 2 and 3.

Conclusion:
The contempt petition was dismissed, and the interim orders were vacated. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC succeeded, leading to the rejection of the plaint against Defendants 2 and 3. The Plaintiff's claims for maintenance and rights to the properties were found to be legally untenable under the relevant statutes.