2022 (1) TMI 918 - HC - Benami Property

Prohibition of benami transactions - plaintiff entitled for the suit property - Whether the settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant is not valid and genuine? - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?? - HELD THAT - No person shall enter into any benami transaction and no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami shall lie. Appellate Judge also found from the evidence that the Appellant gave a complaint to the police through Ex.A7 on 26.08.2013, subsequent to the filing of the suit. In which the appellant has claimed share in the suit property, thereby appellant admitted that his father is the owner of the property. There is absolutely no evidence produced by the appellant to show that he contributed the money for the purchase of the suit property in his father's name and therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the Courts below that the Appellant has failed to establish that he contributed money for the purchase of the suit property in his father's name. Appellant submitted that the appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that is admitted by the 1st Respondent. Even in the written statement, the possession of the appellant in the suit property is admitted but it is claimed that it is a forcible possession taken by the Appellant. When there is no legal claim to the title of the suit property, on the basis of forcible possession of the suit property, appellant cannot claim any right. No substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.3 of 2019 by the Subordinate Judge, Kangayam.

Analysis:
The Appellant filed a suit seeking various reliefs, including declaring a settlement deed null and void, asserting ownership of the suit property, seeking permanent injunction, and restraining the 4th Defendant from registering documents. The Plaintiff claimed to have purchased the property in his father's name and was in possession since the purchase. The 3rd Defendant, his sister, denied these claims, alleging the property was rightfully settled to her by the 1st Defendant, their father. The trial Court dismissed the suit, and the Appellant appealed, which was also dismissed by the Subordinate Judge.

The trial Court framed issues including the validity of the settlement deed, entitlement of the Plaintiff to the property, entitlement to permanent injunction, and other reliefs. Witnesses were examined, and documentary evidence was presented. Both lower courts found in favor of the 3rd Defendant, concluding the Plaintiff failed to prove his case. The Appellant argued he purchased the property with his income, but the courts found no evidence supporting this claim. The courts also noted the inapplicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, to the alleged benami transaction.

The Appellate Judge highlighted that a complaint by the Appellant claiming a share in the property contradicted his ownership claim during the trial. The courts found no proof of the Appellant's financial contribution to the property purchase in his father's name. The Appellant's possession of the property was acknowledged but deemed forcible. The lack of legal claim to the property's title negated any right based on possession alone. The Court concluded that no substantial legal questions merited further review, leading to the dismissal of the Second Appeal without costs.