2015 (2) TMI 1362 - HC - Benami Property

Benami transaction - ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property - right of coparcener in the Hindu Undivided Family - father of the plaintiff has gifted the suit property in favour of the plaintiff - case of the defendant is that there was an oral family settlement by virtue of which the suit property has come into the favour of the defendant - HELD THAT - The defendant has admitted in his pleading that the father of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property which has been admittedly gifted to the plaintiff by her father. In case any amount is spent for the purpose of construction of the suit property as alleged by the defendant, the suit for recovery of said amount ought to have been filed. There is no written document at all between the two families of any nature. On the otherhand, the gift deed is a registered document which is within the knowledge of the defendant and other family members. All the pleas raised by the defendant are dishonest defence, which has no bearing in the eyes of law. The entire defence is moonshine which are raised in order to confuse the Court. Hence, no trial in the matter is required. In the present case, as the defendant is merely a licensee, the suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction is maintainable in view of peculiar facts and circumstances. Thus, the objection of the defendant is rejected. It is a rule of law of evidence, which is also known as the best evidence rule that in case a written document is available, no oral evidence can be lead in that regard. In the present case, in the face of a document in writing, the pleas of the defendant cannot be permitted to be taken and are barred by the provision of Section 92 of the Evidence Act. As defendant has no right or interest in the suit property. It appears to the Court that the contention raised by the defendant is an afterthought and the defence raised by the defendant is moonshine. Therefore, trial in the matter is not required in view of registered titles in favour of the plaintiff for the last thirty years which are unchallenged by the defendant. On the contrary, the defendant has failed to enforce an alleged oral family settlement which is denied by the plaintiff and the materials placed on record do not give any indication to establish the pleas raised by the defendant. Therefore, a decree is liable to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in view of the settled law. Order - Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for mandatory injunction whereby directing the defendant to remove all his belongings from the portion of the property bearing No.205, AGCR Enclave, Delhi. Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants whereby permanent restraining the defendants for creating any third party interest in the said suit property and further permanently restraining them to part with the possession of the suit property and further permanently restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the suit property.
2. Legitimacy of the plaintiff's claim to the property based on the Gift Deed.
3. Defendant's claim of family settlement and joint family funds.
4. Application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
5. Admissibility of oral evidence against written documents.
6. Granting of mandatory and permanent injunctions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the Suit Property:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of the property at 205, AGCR Enclave, Delhi, through a registered Gift Deed dated 3rd September 1984. The defendant contested this, asserting that the property was acquired and constructed using joint family funds and was subject to a family settlement.

2. Legitimacy of the Plaintiff's Claim:
The plaintiff's ownership claim was supported by the Gift Deed and a subsequent conveyance deed dated 12th October 2000. The defendant did not dispute the registration of these documents but argued that the property was part of a family settlement. However, the court emphasized that the Gift Deed was a registered document, making the plaintiff the legal owner.

3. Defendant's Claim of Family Settlement:
The defendant argued that there was an oral family settlement, which allocated different portions of the property to various family members. However, the court noted that no legal steps were taken by the defendant to formalize or enforce this alleged settlement. The court found the defendant's claims to be an afterthought and not supported by any written agreement or legal proceedings.

4. Application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988:
The court ruled that the defendant's defense was barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. This section prohibits any claim or defense based on the real ownership of property held benami, except in specific circumstances not applicable in this case. The court cited several precedents, including Peeyush Aggarwal vs. Sanjeev Bhavnani, to support this interpretation.

5. Admissibility of Oral Evidence Against Written Documents:
The court reiterated the "best evidence rule," which states that when a written document exists, no oral evidence can be admitted to contradict its terms. The court cited several cases, such as M/s. Kusum Enterprises vs. Vimal Kochhar, to emphasize that the terms of a registered document can only be altered by another registered document.

6. Granting of Mandatory and Permanent Injunctions:
The court granted the plaintiff's application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for judgment based on admissions. The court found that the defendant's defense lacked substance and was merely an attempt to delay the proceedings. Consequently, the court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting mandatory and permanent injunctions to remove the defendant's belongings and restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the property.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the defendant's claims, citing the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act and the inadmissibility of oral evidence against the registered Gift Deed. The court granted the plaintiff's prayers for mandatory and permanent injunctions but rejected the claim for monetary compensation due to a lack of evidence. The suit was disposed of with costs awarded to the plaintiff.