2009 (9) TMI 1047 - HC - Benami Property

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the case are ownership and possession of a disputed house, validity of sale deeds, benami transactions, rights of bona fide purchasers, collusion between parties, and maintainability of the suit.

Ownership and Possession:
The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of a house purchased from previous owners, alleging that defendants had illegally transferred shares. Defendants admitted the purchase but disputed plaintiff's ownership and possession, claiming joint ownership and legal transfers. The trial court framed issues regarding ownership, possession, and validity of sale deeds.

Validity of Sale Deeds:
The sale deeds dated 26.2.1985 and 13.4.1987 were central to the dispute. Plaintiff contended that the property was benami and she was the real owner, as she paid the consideration. However, evidence showed that defendants were in possession and had dealings with the property. The court analyzed the sale deeds, ownership claims, and the plaintiff's lack of involvement with the property.

Bona Fide Purchaser and Collusion:
Defendant No.3 claimed to be a bona fide purchaser without notice, while plaintiff alleged collusion between defendants. The court examined the transactions, notices served, and the conduct of the parties to determine the validity of the purchase and the presence of collusion.

Maintainability of the Suit:
The court addressed the maintainability of the suit in its current form, considering the ownership, possession, and transactional details presented by both parties. The substantial question of law focused on whether the Additional District Judge misread the evidence regarding the property's ownership status.

Judgment Summary:
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge and upholding the trial court's decision. It found that the plaintiff had no real concern with the disputed property, as evidenced by her lack of involvement and contradictory statements. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim of benami ownership was unfounded, considering her actions and the evidence presented. Therefore, the suit was deemed not maintainable, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the defendants.