9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 304 - HC - Benami PropertyProhibition of Benami Property Transactions - property got by succession - plaintiff entitlement of estate of deceased - plaintiff are joint owners, possessors and successors of property - fabricated document styled as a sale deed - As contended that the 18th respondent is a conspirator along with the vendors - According to petitioner, the 18th respondent and its Directors are not innocent and bona fide purchasers of the property under the registered Sale Deed - HELD THAT - The Written Statement filed by the 18th respondent is filed as Annexure P.14 in the Writ Petition and it discloses a substantial defence to the claim in the suit made by Saheb Zadi Mubarak Begum. There are several disputed questions of fact which arise for consideration in the suit. Whether the plea of the plaintiff is true or whether the stand of the 18th respondent / 8th defendant in the above suit is true, are matters to be gone into in the said suit after trial, and it is not necessary for us to express any view in the matter.The petitioner is set up by the said Saheb Zadi Mubarak Begum/plaintiff to file this Writ Petition in order to avoid any suspicion against her and that he is colluding with her and supporting her in the suit. Petitioner and plaintiff in the above suit, by leading evidence in the suit, and by cross-examining witnesses for respondent no.18, can prove their contentions in the suit. This Court is not inclined to go into the several contentions advanced in the Writ Petition and conduct a parallel enquiry to that which would happen in the civil suit when it would go to trial. Nor is it inclined to express any view on the respective contentions of the parties. Petitioner wants this Court to do a roving enquiry into the affairs of the Registration Department and the business affairs of respondent nos.14 to 35 and cull out, using this forum, information which could be used by him or the plaintiff in the above suit, to black mail or coerce the 18th respondent to some sort of settlement, if possible. This Court cannot allow itself to be used as a private investigator by the petitioners to prove their contentions in the civil suit or to coerce the respondents 13 to 35 in the Writ Petition. Also, solely on the basis of suspicions and assumptions of the petitioner, we do not deem it appropriate to cast aspersions on officers of Government Departments like respondent nos.8 to 10. We are of the opinion that filing of this Writ Petition is an abuse of process of Court and that the Writ Petition does not deserve to be entertained by this Court.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the sale deed dated 02.08.1978. 2. Allegations of benami transactions and money laundering. 3. Request for forensic analysis of documents. 4. Allegations of collusion and conspiracy among respondents. 5. Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the writ petition amidst an ongoing civil suit. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of the Sale Deed Dated 02.08.1978: The petitioner contended that the sale deed dated 02.08.1978 is a fake document interpolated in the records of the District Registrar, Hyderabad. The petitioner alleged that the 16th and 17th respondents, who are auto drivers, were used by the 13th respondent to fabricate this document in collusion with the staff of the District Registrar. The petitioner sought the production of Book No.1 and the corresponding Thumb Impression Register for Neutron Activation Analysis / Age of Ink Test to verify the authenticity of the document. 2. Allegations of Benami Transactions and Money Laundering: The petitioner accused the 18th respondent and its Directors of being involved in benami transactions prohibited under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. It was contended that the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed dated 19.10.2013 was not paid to the 16th and 17th respondents but was received by the 14th respondent, indicating a benami transaction. The petitioner also alleged that the 18th respondent had no capacity to pay the sale consideration of ?9 crores, given its authorized share capital and paid-up capital. 3. Request for Forensic Analysis of Documents: The petitioner requested the court to inspect the binding of Book No.1 of 1978 in the Office of the District Registrar, Hyderabad, to note discrepancies. Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Police to seize the original register and send it for forensic analysis to the Bhabha Atomic Research Center, Trombay, Mumbai. 4. Allegations of Collusion and Conspiracy Among Respondents: The petitioner alleged that respondents 13 and 14, along with respondents 19 to 35, conspired to create the sale deed dated 02.08.1978. It was contended that the 18th respondent is not an innocent purchaser but a conspirator along with the vendors. The petitioner also alleged that several companies and limited liability partnerships incorporated by respondents 19 to 35 were involved in real estate business without GST registration and returns, warranting a forensic audit. 5. Jurisdiction of the Court to Entertain the Writ Petition Amidst an Ongoing Civil Suit: The court noted that the petitioner is the 2nd defendant in the ongoing civil suit O.S.No.952 of 2014 and has not filed a copy of his written statement in the suit. The court observed that the issues raised in the writ petition, including the authenticity of the sale deed and allegations of conspiracy, are matters to be determined in the civil suit after trial. The court emphasized that it is not inclined to conduct a parallel enquiry or express any view on the respective contentions of the parties in the civil suit. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner, in collusion with the plaintiff in the civil suit, is attempting to use the writ petition to gather information and coerce the respondents. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, emphasizing the dangers of frivolous or motivated petitions. The court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, deeming it an abuse of the process of court, and imposed costs of ?5,000/- on the petitioner to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. All miscellaneous petitions pending in the writ petition were also closed.
|
