9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 977 - HC - Benami PropertyBenami Transaction or not - properties purchased by the father in the name of mother - Plaintiff contended that her mother was only a benami for her father and that she did not have any right in her to execute Exts.P3 and P8 settlement deeds. - suit is laid for partition of three items of properties which are described in Schedules A to C in the plaint and plaintiff also seeks a declaration that the two settlement deeds that her mother had executed pertaining to Schedule A and Schedule B items of properties are null and void - HELD THAT - The person in whose name stamp papers were purchased more so when they are spouses can never be considered as a strong piece of evidence to compel an inference conclusively the intent behind a purchase. This Court considers that it is far too inadequate to prove benami . The evidence as has been made available does not preponderate a possibility that the properties purchased under Ext. D-1 Ext.P.17 and Ext.D-2 Ext.P.18 in the name of Rajeswari Bai are not held benami by her for her husband Bapanna Rao but on the contrary they suggest that they are the personal properties of Rajeswari Bai. Issue No 1 is therefore decided against the plaintiff. Consequently there is no need to consider the Additional Issue on the tenability of pleading benami in the face of statutory bar under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act 1988 or its current version. Validity of settlement deed - exclusion of plaintiff - mental status of Monther for execution of deed - right of the plaintiff over property under the schedule A category - HELD THAT - It is true that the plaintiff too has not examined herself. But non-examination of the first defendant is critical since she alone could provide the facts pertaining to the mental status of Rajeswari Bai at the time of Exts.P.3 and P.8 more so when the mental state of the 2nd defendant is suspect. They at least could have examined any physician who had treated Rajeswari Bai with supporting medical records but that was ignored. This Court now has little option than to hold that Rajeswari Bai would not have been in sound mental state sufficient enough to understand what she was doing and that Exts.P.3 and P.8 are not the product of her free will. Issues 3 5 and 6 are decided accordingly. It may have to be stated that the basic theory which the defendants plead for justifying the execution of settlement deeds is not without any merit. After all the first defendant has been caring both her ailing mother and brother besides caring her nephews and given the circumstances it would be only natural for Rajeswari Bai to execute the settlement deeds in their favour but the point is not about the availability of circumstances for justifying the exclusion of plaintiff and her branch from the settlement deeds but it is about her mental capacity to execute them. Here the defendants are seen wanting in their efforts when they chose to withhold the first defendant from being examined as a witness. It has come on record that in the A schedule property the defendants have put up a substantial structure at considerable expenses. Therefore they must have a fair chance of retaining the same by adjusting the equities vis-a-vis their shares in other two schedules of properties. However they may have to wait for another day when final decree is passed. Order Ext.P3 settlement deed executed by Rajeswari Bai are set aside as null and void and Plaintiff s 1/3 share in all the schedules of suit properties are hereby declared.
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and nature of A and B schedule properties. 2. Validity of the settlement deeds executed by Rajeswari Bai. 3. Plaintiff's entitlement to partition and declaration of share. 4. Applicability of the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, 1988. Summary: Issue 1: Ownership and Nature of A and B Schedule Properties The plaintiff contended that A and B schedule properties were purchased by her father, Bapanna Rao, in the name of her mother, Rajeswari Bai, without any intent to benefit her exclusively, making her a benami holder. The defendants argued that these properties were purchased by Rajeswari Bai using her own funds and were her exclusive properties. The court found no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim that Bapanna Rao financed the purchases, noting that Rajeswari Bai had possession and control over these properties for 40 years without any assertion of rights by Bapanna Rao. Consequently, the court concluded that the properties were not held benami and were the personal properties of Rajeswari Bai. Issue 2: Validity of the Settlement Deeds The plaintiff challenged the validity of the settlement deeds executed by Rajeswari Bai, claiming they were a result of undue influence and coercion by the first defendant. The court noted that Rajeswari Bai was aged, paralytic, and under the care of the first defendant when she executed the deeds. The first defendant did not testify to refute the claims of undue influence, and no medical evidence was presented to prove Rajeswari Bai's mental fitness at the time of execution. The court inferred that Rajeswari Bai was not in a sound mental state to execute the deeds, declaring them null and void. Issue 3: Plaintiff's Entitlement to Partition and Declaration of Share Given the invalidity of the settlement deeds, the court declared the plaintiff entitled to a 1/3 share in all the suit properties described in schedules A, B, and C. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, setting aside the contested settlement deeds and confirming her share. Issue 4: Applicability of the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, 1988 The court found that the properties in question were not benami, thus rendering the applicability of the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, 1988, and its 2016 amendments irrelevant to the case. The plaintiff's claim of benami was unsupported by evidence, and the properties were deemed the personal assets of Rajeswari Bai. Conclusion: The court decreed the suit with costs, setting aside the settlement deeds dated 04.04.2005 and 25.10.2007 as null and void, and declared the plaintiff's 1/3 share in all the suit properties. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
|
