9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 217 - HC - Benami PropertyBenami transaction - Plaintiff seeking a mandatory injunction in respect of property Restraining the defendants from creating any third-party interest qua the suit property - plaintiff further seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and interfering/or obstructing with the plaintiff s possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property - plaintiff is a permanent resident of Canada as well as naturalized Canadian citizen. HELD THAT - In the facts of this case, it is apparent that late Sardar Nirmal Singh as an extended family member was permitted by late Sh. Raghbir Singh to occupy a portion of the suit property as a licensee. In ordinary course, owners permit extended family members to use and occupy immovable properties out of love and affection on the reasonable belief that the property will be vacated by the family member when called upon by the owner. To permit late Sardar Nirmal Singh or his family member to contend that the evidence of their possession in the suit property without payment of rent or licence fee would entitle them to raise a claim of ownership would be putting premium on a dishonest plea and would also be an abuse of the exception provided in proviso 2(ii) to Section 2 (9) (A) of the Benami Act. In the facts of this case, upon perusal of the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that late Sh. Raghbir Singh held the suit property in a fiduciary capacity qua Sardar Nirmal Singh. This Court finds that the suit lacks a cause of action. Furthermore, the plea of ownership raised is barred under Section 4 of the Benami Act. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Pankaja 2004 (8) TMI 716 - SUPREME COURT relied upon by the plaintiff in support of their amendment application, is misplaced. The ratio which flows form the said judgement is that an amendment of pleadings must not be disallowed merely on the ground that the relief sought is barred by limitation which does not apply to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the suit is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of the CPC. The suit property comprises of a superstructure comprising ground floor, first floor, second floor and terrace on a plot admeasuring 250 sq. yds. The plaintiff asserts that he is in actual physical possession of the entire second floor along with terrace; and is in constructive possession of the remaining floors which are in the physical possession of the tenants. Issuance of mandatory injunction to the plaintiff to handover peaceful and vacant possession to the defendant no. 1 - Keeping in view, the judgments of the Supreme Court in Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria 2012 (3) TMI 594 - SUPREME COURT judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Liberty Sales Services v. Jakki Mull Sons 1997 (2) TMI 601 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Nathu Ram v. DDA 2022 (2) TMI 1479 - DELHI HIGH COURT this Court hereby passes a decree of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff herein to handover the vacant physical possession of the portion occupied by him in the suit property to the defendant no. 1 within four (4) weeks from today having come to this conclusion that he is in illegal and unauthorised possession of the suit property. The order for payment of mesne profits for the continued illegal possession w.e.f. 01.05.2022 is being passed. Accordingly, the reliefs sought by the plaintiff are dismissed in the aforesaid terms along with all pending application and a mandatory injunction is passed against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant no. 1. Award of actual costs in favour of the defendant - This Court is of the considered opinion that this suit filed by the plaintiff is an abuse of process. The Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi Others v. Nirmala Devi 2011 (7) TMI 1305 - SUPREME COURT has opined that uncalled for litigation gets encouragement because Courts do not impose realistic costs. Keeping in view the Section 35 (2) of CPC, Rules 1 (i) 2 of Chapter XXIII of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and the judgment of Ramrameshwari Devi (Supra), this Court deems it appropriate to impose actual costs on the plaintiff and payable to the defendants. For the purpose of determining the actual cost incurred by the defendants to be paid by the plaintiff herein, the Taxing Officer of this Court is directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 ( Original Side Rules, 2018 ). List before the Taxing Officer/concerned Joint Registrar on 03.12.2024.
Issues Involved:
1. Claim of the plaintiff for a mandatory and permanent injunction regarding the suit property. 2. Plaintiff's claim of joint ownership based on a fiduciary relationship and contribution to the purchase consideration. 3. Application for amendment of the plaint to include a declaration of sole ownership. 4. Defendants' assertion of exclusive ownership and legal rights over the suit property. 5. Plaintiff's claim of continuous possession and payment of property taxes and utilities. 6. Defendants' claim for recovery of possession and mesne profits. Detailed Analysis: 1. Claim for Injunctions: The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to prevent the defendants from creating third-party interests in the property and a permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The court found the plaintiff's claims unsubstantiated, as the title deed named late Sh. Raghbir Singh as the absolute owner, and the property was mutated in the names of his legal heirs. The plaintiff's lack of documentary evidence to support his claim of ownership or possession led to the rejection of the injunction requests. 2. Claim of Joint Ownership and Fiduciary Relationship: The plaintiff alleged that the property was purchased by Sh. Raghbir Singh in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the plaintiff's father, Sardar Nirmal Singh, with joint funds. However, the court noted the absence of any written agreement or evidence of joint business ventures or contributions towards the purchase. The court emphasized that such claims are barred under Section 4 of the Benami Act without credible evidence, and the plaintiff's reliance on exceptions under the Benami Act was deemed misconceived due to the lack of documentation. 3. Amendment of the Plaint: The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to include a declaration of sole ownership. The court dismissed this application, finding it inconsistent with the original claim of joint ownership and unsupported by evidence. The court highlighted that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie case for ownership, rendering the amendment futile. 4. Defendants' Assertion of Ownership: The defendants argued that Sh. Raghbir Singh was the exclusive owner, supported by the title deed and subsequent legal proceedings that affirmed the property devolved to his legal heirs. The court accepted this position, noting that the plaintiff was aware of prior litigations and never claimed ownership during those proceedings. 5. Plaintiff's Claim of Possession and Payment of Dues: The plaintiff claimed continuous possession of the second floor and terrace, supported by payment of property taxes and utility bills. The court clarified that these payments indicate possession, not ownership, and do not substantiate the plaintiff's claims. Furthermore, the plaintiff's income tax returns showed no declaration of rental income, contradicting his claim of receiving rent from tenants. 6. Defendants' Claim for Recovery and Mesne Profits: The defendants sought recovery of possession and mesne profits, asserting the plaintiff's status as a licensee with a revoked license. The court agreed, ordering the plaintiff to vacate the property and awarding mesne profits based on comparable rental values in the area. The court found the plaintiff's continued possession unauthorized and granted the defendants' claims for possession and profits. Conclusion: The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish any legal right or ownership over the suit property, dismissing the suit and all related applications. The court also imposed costs on the plaintiff for abusing the legal process and ordered the plaintiff to hand over possession to the defendants. The defendants' claims for mesne profits were upheld, with the court determining a fair rental value for the period of unauthorized occupation.
|
