2022 (6) TMI 287 - HC - Benami Property

Benami Property Transaction - title over the suit properties - application for temporary injunction to restrain the appellant from alienating the properties - purchase of a property by husband in the name of the wife - respondent is the husband of the appellant - HELD THAT - Though the appellant has contended that she purchased the suit properties from her own income, there is no material to substantiate her contention. Rather she has admitted that loan was raised in their joint names for purchasing the property and that the respondent repaid the loan. The appellant is a housewife and for this reason, it is difficult to believe that she could purchase the suit properties. It is the clear case of the respondent that he was working as a Subedar in the Indian Army and till 2015, the appellant and the children were living with him. In this view, it may not be possible to hold at this stage that she had independent source of income. Moreover purchase of a property by husband in the name of the wife cannot be called a benami transaction and such type of transaction falls within the exception no. 3 to clause 'A' of sub-section 9 of section 2 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. In this view the respondent has made out a prima facie case that he has got the right to seek declaration of his title over the suit properties. The appellant has made her intention very clear to alienate the property. She may have stated that because the respondent neglected to maintain her and their children and this has necessitated the alienation, but this reason cannot be considered to hold that she has every right to alienate the property, especially in a circumstance where she has not produced any material to show that the suit properties can be considered as her absolute properties. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act does not apply to the present circumstance. In this view if the alienation takes place, certainly the respondent's interest would be affected. Circumstances indicate the balance of convenience being in favour of the respondent. The principle laid in the case of R. Dilip Kumar Vs. Ramu 1992 (6) TMI 185 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT is actually not helpful to the appellant. The principle that no order of injunction can be issued if the plaintiff's case is doubtful, is restated in the said decision. On the premise of the facts of that case, the co-ordinate Bench of this court declined to grant an order of temporary injunction. As it is found that discretion is properly exercised by the trial court for granting temporary injunction, there cannot be interference in the appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. Regarding the limitation period as argued by the appellant's counsel, it may be stated that the date of purchase of the property, in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, cannot be considered as date of accrual of cause of action. The date of denial of the right of the plaintiff is what matters for reckoning the period of limitation and therefore the argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted at this stage. The trial court may give a finding with regard to limitation if an issue is framed to that effect.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of the temporary injunction granted by the trial court.
2. Dispute over ownership and right to alienate plaint schedule properties.
3. Interpretation of the cause of action and limitation period for filing the suit.

Issue 1: Validity of the temporary injunction:
The respondent filed an application for temporary injunction to restrain the appellant from alienating the properties, claiming he purchased them in the name of his wife and was repaying the loan. The trial court granted the injunction based on findings that the loan was in joint names, the respondent repaid it, and the appellant failed to show independent income. The court held the respondent made a prima facie case, and balance of convenience favored him. The appellant argued the suit was time-barred and she had the right to alienate the properties for family maintenance. The respondent contended the cause of action arose when the appellant attempted to sell the properties. The court found no error in granting the injunction, as the respondent established his case and the balance of convenience favored him.

Issue 2: Dispute over ownership and right to alienate properties:
The appellant claimed she bought the properties with her own money, but the respondent argued he purchased them in his wife's name and repaid the loan. The respondent provided bank statements showing payments and argued the appellant had no independent income. The trial court found in favor of the respondent, holding the appellant failed to substantiate her claim and the respondent had the right to seek declaration of title. The appellant's intention to alienate the properties due to lack of maintenance by the respondent was deemed insufficient to establish her right to alienate, as she did not prove the properties were solely hers. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the properties were her absolute properties and that Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act did not apply in this case.

Issue 3: Interpretation of cause of action and limitation period:
The appellant argued the suit was time-barred based on the cause of action dates mentioned in the plaint. The respondent contended the cause of action arose when the appellant tried to sell the properties, not on the dates of execution of sale deeds. The court rejected the appellant's limitation argument, stating the denial of the plaintiff's right mattered for limitation, not the property purchase date. The trial court was directed to decide on limitation if framed as an issue. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, finding no error in granting the temporary injunction.

In conclusion, the High Court of Karnataka upheld the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction, as the respondent established a prima facie case and the balance of convenience favored him. The dispute over ownership and right to alienate properties was decided in favor of the respondent, who proved his contributions to the properties. The interpretation of the cause of action and limitation period was clarified, rejecting the appellant's time-bar argument. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision.