2019 (3) TMI 93 - HC - Benami Property

Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction - Prayer for a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs for removing the defendant, her agents, etc. from one room on the ground floor of the suit property - substance of the actual defence of the defendant from a perusal of the written statement is that the property in question has been purchased from the joint family fund obtained from the joint family business belonging to the father of the parties - Held that - Clearly, vague, unsubstantiated and evasive pleas have been held to be sufficient ground to hold that there are admissions in the pleadings and a decree is liable to be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are vague, inconsistent and do not in any manner whatsoever show that any worthwhile defence is raised or any right exists in favour of the defendant to enable her to continue to occupy the suit property. The defence taken by the defendant is vague and unsubstantiated and a mere attempt to prolong the present litigation. Accordingly, no defence is available to the defendant. The present application under Order 6 Rule 12 CPC is liable to be allowed. Whether the claim of the defendant would be barred under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988? - Held that - A suit would not lie to enforce any right in respect of the property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held. No defence can also be based on any right in regard to any properties held benami. What the defendant had sought to plead is that the present suit property has been bought by the plaintiffs in the name of the plaintiffs out of the funds generated from the family business/funds generated after disposing of the joint family property - The plaintiff has failed to aver the basic requirements to show or plead about existence of any Hindu undivided family or joint family property. The pleas raised by the defendant are vague, unsubstantiated and frivolous. The defence raised by the defendant is clearly barred by Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act. The exception to the Act as stated in section 2(9)(A)(i) or (iv) are not applicable. There is a clear averment made in the plaint that the defendant was inducted into the suit property as a licensee. This plea in the plaint has not been specifically denied which is clear from the paras of the plaint that were noted above especially paras 3, 5 and 15 of the plaint read with the relevant paras of the written statement. Instead the defendant has chosen to raise vague and unsubstantiated plea about the suit property having been bought from funds siphoned off from the family business/from sale of joint family property - there is no proper denial of the averment in the plaint that the defendant was inducted as a licensee - once a licensee would always be a licensee. The license given in favour of the defendant stands terminated. The defendant would clearly be liable to be evicted. Present adjudication is confined to the plaint herein and the defence raised in the written statement filed by the defendant and the documents thereof. Hence, the findings recorded herein would not prejudice the defendant in her adjudication of the said afore-noted suit - present application allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Decree based on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
2. Ownership and right to reside in the suit property.
3. Defendant's claim of the property being a benami property.
4. Defendant's status as a licensee.
5. Applicability of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988.
6. Estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act.
7. Shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Decree based on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC:
The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree based on admissions. The court noted that the written statement by the defendant was vague and lacked material particulars. The denials in the written statement were evasive and did not constitute a specific response. The court emphasized that under Order 8 Rule 3 and Rule 4 CPC, a defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact and not deny them evasively.

2. Ownership and right to reside in the suit property:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the suit property, with plaintiff No. 1 owning the basement and ground floor, and plaintiff No. 2 owning the first and second floors along with roof rights. The defendant, who is the sister of plaintiff No. 1, was allowed to reside in one room on the ground floor on a gratuitous basis due to marital problems. The defendant argued that the property was purchased from joint family funds and that she had a right to reside there based on a family arrangement and promises made by the plaintiffs.

3. Defendant's claim of the property being a benami property:
The defendant claimed that the property was purchased from the funds of the joint family business and was a benami property. The court noted that the defendant's claims were vague and unsubstantiated. The defendant failed to provide specific details or evidence to support the existence of a joint family property or business. The court referred to previous judgments to highlight the necessity of specific pleadings to establish a claim of joint family property.

4. Defendant's status as a licensee:
The plaintiffs argued that the defendant was a licensee and had no right to claim title to the property. The court noted that the defendant's written statement did not categorically deny her status as a licensee. The court emphasized that a licensee cannot claim title to the property and is estopped from denying the title of the person who granted the license.

5. Applicability of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988:
The court examined whether the defendant's claim was barred under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. The court noted that the defendant's claims were vague and lacked specific pleadings required to establish the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or joint family property. The court held that the defendant's defense was barred under Section 4 of the Act as it did not fall within the exceptions provided under the Act.

6. Estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act:
The court referred to Section 116 of the Evidence Act, which states that a person who comes into possession of a property as a licensee cannot deny the title of the person who granted the license. The court held that the defendant, being a licensee, was estopped from denying the plaintiffs' title to the property.

7. Shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act:
The defendant briefly mentioned that the suit property was a shared household under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. However, the court noted that there were no substantial pleadings or arguments made in this regard. The court did not take any view on the merits of this plea as it was not adequately raised or substantiated.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, holding that the defendant's defenses were vague, unsubstantiated, and barred under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act. The court passed a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendant from entering or occupying the suit property and directing the defendant to remove her belongings from the property. The suit was disposed of with no costs awarded to either party.

← Previous Next →