2019 (4) TMI 2111 - HC - Benami Property

Benami transaction - Real owner of property - as contended that since the subject property though in the name of paternal grandmother of the plaintiff, was purchased from the funds received by her husband (who was the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff) for giving up his share in property which was a property of the HUF, and the plaintiff, being the son of defendant no. 3 who in turn is the son of paternal grandmother of the plaintiff has a share in the property - plea of the plaintiff in this suit, of Kanta Batra being the benami owner of the property and HUF of K.N. Batra being the real owner of the property, is in the teeth of the said law - HELD THAT - Once it is held that the property No. A-2/27, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in law and on the averments in the plaint, cannot be the property of the HUF, the question of the plaintiff having any share therein would not arise. On the demise of Kanta Batra, in the absence of any Will, the said property would devolve on her heirs in accordance with Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act upon her sons and daughters and not upon the plaintiff who is the grandson of Kanta Batra. It may also be noticed that none other than the plaintiff including the father of the plaintiff i.e. the defendant no. 3 is claiming the property to be of the HUF. On the contrary, the father of the plaintiff is claiming the property to be the sole property of Kanta Batra and is claiming exclusive right thereto under a document stated to be the last Will of Kanta Batra. The claim if any of the plaintiff to the property can be only out of the share of his father and once the father of the plaintiff himself is not supporting the plea of the plaintiff, it is quite obvious that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with his father and for the eventuality of the father of the plaintiff failing in the Will set up by him. The suit is thus dismissed with costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants no. 1, 2 4 of Rs. 30,000/-.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the property No. A-2/27, Janakpuri, New Delhi is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property.
2. Maintainability of the suit for partition.
3. Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
4. Rights of the plaintiff in the property under Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the property No. A-2/27, Janakpuri, New Delhi is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property:
The plaintiff claimed that the property No. A-2/27, Janakpuri, New Delhi, purchased in the name of his paternal grandmother Kanta Batra, was acquired using funds from the partition of HUF property No. F-259, New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide any documents to substantiate the claim that property No. F-259, New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi was an HUF property, or that the funds used to purchase the Janakpuri property were derived from it. The court emphasized that the property in question was acquired by Kanta Batra in her own name in 1971 and could not constitute an HUF property of her husband K.N. Batra and his sons. Additionally, the court referred to the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, which bars claims that property held in someone else's name is actually owned by another, except in specific circumstances not applicable here.

2. Maintainability of the suit for partition:
The court examined whether the plaintiff had a cause of action for the suit for partition. It was argued that since Kanta Batra was a housewife with no source of income, the property must have been purchased with HUF funds, making it HUF property. However, the court found that there was no substantial evidence or detailed pleadings to support this claim. The court highlighted the importance of specific pleadings and evidence to avoid abuse of the judicial process.

3. Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988:
The court noted that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and its amendments, prohibit claims that property held in another's name is actually owned by the claimant, except where the property is held by a trustee or in a fiduciary capacity, or by a coparcener in an HUF. Since Kanta Batra, a female, could not be a coparcener, and there was no evidence she held the property in a fiduciary capacity, the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Act.

4. Rights of the plaintiff in the property under Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The court referred to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which states that any property owned by a female Hindu is her absolute property. Upon Kanta Batra's death, the property would devolve upon her legal heirs as per Section 15 of the Act, which includes her sons and daughters, but not her grandson (the plaintiff). The court also noted that the plaintiff's father (defendant no. 3) was pursuing a separate testamentary case claiming the property under a purported Will of Kanta Batra, indicating a lack of support for the plaintiff's claim from his own father.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the property No. A-2/27, Janakpuri, New Delhi, could not be considered HUF property, and the plaintiff had no share in it. The suit was dismissed with costs of Rs. 30,000 payable by the plaintiff to defendants no. 1, 2, and 4. The decree sheet was ordered to be drawn up.