2023 (8) TMI 493 - HC - Benami Property

Benami Transactions - real/absolute owner - rights of bona fide purchaser of the property for valuable consideration - whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property in consequence that the defendant, her men and agents are to be restrained from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property? - Trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the property was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of his wife / 1st defendant and it was purchased for her benefits - HELD THAT - The suit was instituted for declaration and permanent injunction. Though the plaintiff was in possession of the Suit property the Trial Court found that the plaintiff purchased the property for the benefit of the 1st defendant, who is none other than his wife and from out of their relationship two sons were born and at a later point of time there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and subsequently, the 1st defendant lived separately. Admittedly, the suit property was purchased in the name of the 1st defendant and the sale deed was marked as Ex.A1 and Patta was marked as Ex.A2, which also stand in the name of the 1st defendant. The transaction and execution of sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant has not been hit by the provision of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, since the plaintiff is the husband of the 1st defendant. This being the facts and circumstances considered by the Trial Court, this Court do not find any infirmity or perversity in respect of the judgment and decree passed 2017 (1) TMI 1814 - DISTRICT COURT, CHENGALPET Accordingly, the judgement and decree passed by the District Court, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpet stands confirmed and consequently, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment and decree in O.S.No.236 of 2009.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a retired Government servant, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding properties purchased in the name of his third wife, the 1st defendant. The appellant claimed to have bought the properties using his personal savings and Provident Fund. Disputes arose between the appellant and the 1st defendant, leading to the suit.

2. The 1st defendant denied the appellant's ownership of the properties, asserting that she purchased them with financial assistance from her family. The 2nd defendant, a subsequent purchaser, claimed bona fide acquisition of one of the properties and raised issues under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.

3. The Trial Court framed issues regarding the appellant's ownership of the properties and the relief he was entitled to. Witnesses were examined, and documents were presented by both parties.

4. The Trial Court analyzed the relationship between the appellant and the 1st defendant, noting discrepancies in their statements. It considered the Benami Transactions Act and the presumption that property purchased in the wife's name is for her benefit.

5. The Trial Court found that the appellant had purchased the properties in the name of the 1st defendant for her benefit, despite disputes between them. The Court also addressed the 2nd defendant's purchase during the suit's pendency, invoking the Doctrine of lis pendens.

6. The Trial Court concluded that the appellant had purchased the properties for the 1st defendant's benefit, and the 2nd defendant's acquisition was not bona fide due to the ongoing suit. The judgment and decree of O.S.No.236 of 2009 were upheld, confirming the Trial Court's decision.

7. Consequently, the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.162 of 2017 was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The judgment and decree dated 03.01.2017 from the District Court were affirmed by the High Court.