2022 (2) TMI 683 - HC - Benami Property

Benami transaction - real owners of suit property - non-consideration of the Will set up by the defendants - When the 1st defendant has died pending suit and the suit properties will devolve on the legal heirs whether the Will pleaded by the defendants have to be proved or not for claiming exclusive right? - HELD THAT - Though the first defendant has not produced any relevant document to show how can she purchased the property, that would not defeat the case of the first defendant. In fact, the pleadings set out in the plaint, the plaintiffs have not averred about the income derived from the joint family property. Therefore, on that score alone, the evidence let in by the plaintiffs cannot be taken into account. Therefore, in view of the above, this Court cannot be termed that the suit schedule property, is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the defendants' family. As far as the relief of injunction also, being the reason that the plaintiffs have not proved their case, as the suit property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the defendants, they cannot ask such a relief as against the first defendant, who is having a title. Therefore, in all, the evidence let in by the plaintiffs have not shown that the property has been purchased by utilising the funds realised from the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants. Since the title and possession have not been proved by the plaintiffs, they are not entitled to the relief of injunction. The Courts below had also traversed in the same line and concurrently held that the plaintiffs have not proved their case. While at the time of framing the substantial questions of law, the alleged Will executed by the first defendant has been mentioned as the same has not been answered. In this regard, on going through the judgment rendered by the Court below, after the death of the first defendant, the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to amend the plaint, and impleaded the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. It is well settled that without any pleading, the evidence let in on that score, cannot be looked into. Herein also, without producing the alleged Will and without amending the pleading in respect to the death of the first defendant and in respect to the execution of the Will, it is not necessary for the Court below to decide whether the suit property will devolve upon the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. In this regard, the only option available for the plaintiffs is to file a suit for partition and in otherwise, answering the said issue, is not necessary in this Second Appeal. Substantial questions of law, are all answered in favour of the respondents and thereby, the Second Appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over joint family property declaration.

Analysis:
1. The suit involves a dispute over the joint family property, with the plaintiffs seeking a declaration that the property is jointly owned by them and the defendants. The plaintiffs claim that the property was purchased using joint earnings, while the defendants argue that the property was acquired by the first defendant using her own funds.

2. The plaintiffs allege that the suit property was purchased using joint exertions and earnings of the family members, and that the first defendant is attempting to alienate the property. The defendants deny these claims and assert that the property was acquired by the first defendant through a registered Sale Deed using her own funds.

3. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case. The appellate court upheld this decision, leading the plaintiffs to file a Second Appeal. The substantial questions of law raised include issues related to the non-consideration of a Will by the defendants and the devolution of the suit property upon the legal heirs of the deceased first defendant.

4. The court emphasized the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to establish that the property was purchased from joint family funds. The absence of crucial documents, such as the Sale Deed, and reliance on kist receipts and cash bills in the name of the first defendant weakened the plaintiffs' case.

5. The court referred to legal precedents highlighting that properties in the name of female members are presumed to be their own unless proven otherwise. The plaintiffs' failure to provide evidence of joint family income and the lack of proof regarding the property's acquisition from joint funds undermined their claim.

6. The court also noted that the plaintiffs did not amend the pleading regarding the alleged Will of the deceased first defendant, which could have affected the devolution of the property. Without proper pleading and evidence, the court deemed it unnecessary to address this issue in the Second Appeal.

7. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the respondents, dismissing the Second Appeal and confirming the lower court's decision. The judgment emphasized the importance of meeting the burden of proof in property disputes and the necessity of proper pleading and evidence to support legal claims.