2016 (3) TMI 1401 - HC - Indian Laws

Right in the ancestral property - suit property as per the plaint was purchased by the grandfather of the plaintiff Sh. Tara Chand Chopra in the name of his son Sh. Vasudev Chopra and who is defendant no.1 in the present suit - no cause of action disclosed - bar under Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of YUDHISHTER VERSUS ASHOK KUMAR 1986 (12) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT has been followed recently by the Supreme Court in its judgment in UTTAM VERSUS SAUBHAG SINGH ORS. 2016 (3) TMI 1369 - SUPREME COURT by extending the application to even coparcenary property inherited by a male Hindu from his paternal ancestor. The suit is also barred by Section 4(1) of the Act, inasmuch as, as per the admitted facts stated in the plaint the suit property was purchased by Sh. Tara Chand Chopra in the name of his son Sh. Vasudev Chopra/defendant no.1. Once the property is purchased in the name of defendant no.1, defendant no.1 becomes the sole owner of the suit property unless the plaintiff is able to bring out a case within the exceptions to Section 4(1) of the Act, which are contained in Section 4(3) of the Act of existence of HUF or property being purchased in trust. The plaint does not show existence of any HUF being created after 1956 or HUF existing prior to 1956 which continued after 1956 - also, the plaint does not make any averment with respect to the property being purchased in trust by the grandfather Sh. Tara Chand Chopra in the name of his son Sh. Vasudev Chopra/defendant no.1. The suit is therefore barred by the provision of Section 4(1) of the Act - suit dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Withdrawal of application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
2. Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint.
3. Determination of ancestral property and its implications under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
4. Applicability of Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Withdrawal of Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC:
The plaintiff's counsel requested to withdraw the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to file a fresh one. The court allowed the withdrawal but denied an adjournment for filing the new application, as the suit was being decided on the same day.

2. Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for Rejection of Plaint:
The defendants argued that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. They requested the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC be treated as an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, asserting that the suit should be dismissed based on the admitted facts in the plaint.

3. Determination of Ancestral Property and its Implications under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The plaintiff claimed that the suit property, purchased by his grandfather in the name of his father (defendant no.1), was ancestral property, thus entitling him to a share. The court referred to previous judgments, notably Sunny (Minor) & Anr. vs. Raj Singh & Ors. and Yudhishter vs. Ashok Kumar, which clarified that post-1956, inherited property is considered self-acquired unless it was part of an existing Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or thrown into a common hotchpotch. The court found no evidence of the property being part of an HUF before or after 1956. The mere assertion of ancestral property was insufficient without specific details of how the HUF was created or continued.

4. Applicability of Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988:
The court held that the suit was barred by Section 4(1) of the Act, as the property was purchased in the name of defendant no.1, making him the sole owner unless exceptions in Section 4(3) applied. The plaint did not establish the existence of an HUF or that the property was purchased in trust. Consequently, the suit was barred under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC due to the lack of a legal cause of action and the bar under Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.