9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the bar of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (Benami Act). 2. Whether the plaintiff has a right to claim co-ownership, partition, and permanent injunction against the defendant. 3. Whether the plaintiff can be dispossessed from the property without due process of law. Summary: Issue 1: Maintainability of the Suit in Light of the Benami Act The plaintiff claimed that the property was acquired by his father using self-acquired funds but in the name of the defendant no. 1. The Benami Act prohibits any suit to enforce rights in respect of property held benami. Section 4 of the Benami Act bars any suit claiming ownership against the person in whose name the property is held. The plaintiff argued that the case falls under the exceptions in Section 4(3) of the Benami Act, which allows claims if the property is held by a coparcener in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or by a trustee in a fiduciary capacity. The court found that the plaintiff did not adequately plead the existence of a coparcenary or fiduciary relationship. The claim of a joint Hindu family without specifying a coparcenary does not meet the exception criteria. Thus, the suit is barred by the Benami Act. Issue 2: Right to Claim Co-Ownership, Partition, and Permanent Injunction The plaintiff's claim of co-ownership was based on the assertion that the property was acquired by the father and is thus ancestral property. However, the court found that the property was acquired by the father from his self-acquired funds and not from any joint family funds. The plea of the property being a coparcenary property was not substantiated. The plaintiff's reliance on an affidavit purportedly signed by the defendant no. 1, acknowledging the property as part of a joint Hindu family, was deemed insufficient to overcome the bar of the Benami Act. The court held that the affidavit, even if genuine, would not take the suit out of the prohibition of the Benami Act. Issue 3: Dispossession Without Due Process of Law The plaintiff argued that he had been in possession of the first floor of the property and could not be dispossessed without due process. However, the court-appointed commissioner reported that the first floor had not been in use for several years and was in a dilapidated condition. The court found that the plaintiff was living in the property as a licensee of the defendant no. 1 and had not been in possession at the time of the suit. Under Section 65 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882, a dispossessed licensee is entitled to compensation but not repossession. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for possession was denied. Conclusion: The suit was dismissed as barred by the provisions of the Benami Act. All pending applications were also dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court ordered the decree sheet to be drawn up.
|
