2015 (7) TMI 1385 - HC - Benami Property

Benami transaction - benami ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property taken by the defendant in his written statement - right of coparcener in the Hindu Undivided Family - suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and mesne profits in the year 2010 against Mr. Anil Gulati (brother of her late husband) in respect of suit property - as pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered Gift Deed dated September 03 1984 executed by her father Late Sh.K.B.Midha - HELD THAT - The exception contained in Section 4(3)(a) of the Act restricts its benefit only to property held by a coparcener in a Hindu Undivided Family as opposed to any Member of such family. It is so because coparceners are recognized by law to jointly by birth inherit rights in the joint property of the family property and in the event such property stands in one of their names for the benefit of others the Benami Act is declared to not come in the way. Such benefit however cannot be extended to all/any members of such family who do not have any vested right in the property and to whom such property devolves in their independent/separate capacity by way of intestate succession under the Hindu Succession Act. We repeat the plaintiff being the daughter-in-law of the family is not a coparcener in the Hindu Undivided Family of Late Sh.Krishan Lal Gulati. In view of the fact that requisite (ii) noted above is not fulfilled exception contained in Section 4(3)(a) of the Act has no application in the instant case. Plea of benami ownership contained in Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 - The pleadings made in the written statement by the defendant have been noted by us in great extenso in the foregoing paragraphs. There is not even a whisper in the entire written statement that the plaintiff in whose name the suit property is held is a trustee or was otherwise standing in a fiduciary capacity towards the defendant and suit property was held by the plaintiff for benefit of defendant for whom she is the trustee or towards whom she stands in a fiduciary capacity . In view of the fact that there are no averments in the written statement to bring the defence raised by the defendant within the exception provided by clause (b) of sub-Section 3 of Section 4 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 we concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that Section 4(3)(b) of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 does not save the defence raised by the defendant from being barred in law. Revisiting the averments made in the written statement we find that the defendant pleads that his father (father-in-law of the plaintiff) had purchased the plot over which the suit property is constructed from the father of the plaintiff and thereafter raised construction over the plot from his own funds and that of joint family business. The defendant further pleads that various decisions were taken regarding distribution of joint family properties between the members of family one such decision being that Amrit Gulati the husband of the plaintiff through his wife i.e. the plaintiff shall be the owner of the ground floor of the suit property while the defendant shall be the owner of the first and second floors of the suit property. Who took the decisions All the family members or only some? Where were the decisions taken? On what day month or year were the decisions taken? Nothing has been pleaded. The averments in the written statement are as vague as vagueness can be. The written statement filed by the defendant lacks in material particulars and it has to be held that the so-called pleadings relating to an oral family settlement being arrived at between the parties contained in the written statement are no pleadings in the eyes of law. From the afore-noted decisions it can be safely culled out that a vague plea sans the particulars thereof would be no plea in the eyes of law and no issue can be settled between the parties in relation thereto and no trial is warranted - Instant appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and is thus dismissed with costs against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the suit property.
2. Benami ownership claim.
3. Application of the rule of blending.
4. Validity of the family settlement claim.
5. Application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
6. Pleadings and material particulars in the written statement.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the Suit Property:
The plaintiff, Ms. Promila Gulati, claimed absolute ownership of the suit property based on a registered Gift Deed dated September 03, 1984, executed by her father, Late Sh. K.B. Midha. She argued that the defendant, Mr. Anil Gulati, was a mere licensee who was allowed to reside on the property without rent due to close family relations and his lack of residential property. She sought a permanent and mandatory injunction and mesne profits for the unauthorized occupation by the defendant.

2. Benami Ownership Claim:
The defendant contended that the plaintiff was a benami owner, asserting that the property was purchased by Late Sh. Kishan Lal Gulati (father of the defendant and father-in-law of the plaintiff) from Sh. K.B. Midha, and the Gift Deed was a facade for this transaction. The defendant claimed that the construction on the plot was funded by Kishan Lal Gulati and the joint family.

3. Application of the Rule of Blending:
The defendant argued that even if the property was initially the plaintiff's personal property, it was thrown into the hotchpotch of the Joint Hindu Family, thus becoming joint family property. However, the court noted that the rule of blending applies only to coparceners who have an interest in the coparcenary property. As the plaintiff, being a daughter-in-law, could not be a coparcener, the rule of blending was inapplicable.

4. Validity of the Family Settlement Claim:
The defendant claimed that there was an oral family settlement where the suit property was divided among the family members, with the plaintiff's husband getting the ground floor and the defendant getting the first and second floors. The court found these claims vague and lacking material particulars such as who took the decisions, when, and where. The court emphasized that pleadings must contain specific material facts, and vague assertions do not justify an issue being settled.

5. Application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988:
The plaintiff argued that the defense of benami ownership was barred by Section 4(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The defendant countered that his defense fell within the exceptions in Section 4(3) of the Act, which allow for such a defense if the property is held for the benefit of coparceners in a Hindu Undivided Family or in a fiduciary capacity. The court found that the plaintiff, as a daughter-in-law, was not a coparcener, and there were no pleadings to suggest a fiduciary relationship. Thus, the exceptions did not apply, and the defense was barred.

6. Pleadings and Material Particulars in the Written Statement:
The court highlighted the importance of specific and detailed pleadings as per Order VI Rules 2 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant's written statement was found to lack material particulars and was deemed vague. The court reiterated that vague pleadings do not raise an issue and cannot justify a trial. The court emphasized that pleadings must inspire confidence and credibility, and false or evasive denials should be scrutinized carefully.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the learned Single Judge's decision to grant a decree on admission in favor of the plaintiff. The court concluded that the defense of benami ownership was barred by law, the rule of blending was inapplicable, and the defendant's pleadings were insufficient to warrant a trial. The appeal was dismissed with costs against the appellant.

← Previous Next →