9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the suit property. He lodged no complaint of having been coerced by the Respondents to execute any document before any authority. The other documents relied on by the Appellant being Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 187 pertain to the lottery business of M/s. Bindhya Agency with its Office in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, and lend no credence to the claim of the Appellant with regard to purchase and ownership of the suit properties. Similarly, Exhibit 189 to Exhibit 206 are of no assistance whatsoever to establish even the prima facie case of the Appellant, this despite walking meticulously through the evidence and documents relied on by him. It thus emerges with clarity that he has no documentary evidence whatsoever to verify his claim of ownership over the suit property. To a large extent the documents indicate amounts of money received by the Appellant from his lottery business, but this alone does not suffice to establish that he purchased the suit property sans specific trail of income, investment, viz., purchase of the suit property, and registration of it in his name. It thus stands to conclude that the Appellant failed to establish even a prima facie case and his Suit was rightl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to Respondent No.2, a non-tribal. In order to prevent registration of the suit premises in the name of Respondent No.2 the Appellant issued a Notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Plaint was accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC wherein the Appellant inter alia averred that he had signed on the NOC but having come to learn that the transaction between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was illegal he withdrew it. That, Respondent No.1 in fact had no Stridhan to purchase the properties. Hence, the prayers in the Plaint inter alia seeking a declaration that the NOC was void ab initio; that the Respondent No.1 had no right, title and interest in the suit premises and transfer of the properties to the Respondent No.2 would be illegal, void and inoperative being in contravention to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. 2. In her written statement the Respondent No.1 claimed to be from a reputed family besides which she was a 50% partner in the lottery business along with the Appellant as also in his business venture in Nepal. While denying and disputing the averments of the Appellant regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l with the property in the capacity of Karta of the family? (g) Whether the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property having purchased the same with his personal earnings in the Benami of his wife, i.e., Defendant No.1? 5. Issues (a) and (g) were taken up together for consideration and the Learned Trial Court decided the said Issues against the Appellant on his inability to prove that the suit property was purchased benami by him from his earnings and registered in the name of Respondent No.1. Issue (f) was also decided against the Appellant with the observation that the existence of a Joint Hindu Family or coparcenary could not be proved. Issue (b) also went against the Appellant, the Learned Trial Court having concluded that the Respondent No.1 is the bona fide and absolute owner of the suit property which was purchased from her Stridhan. Issue (c) was decided in favour of the Respondent No.1 with the observation that the other Issues had been decided in her favour. In Issue (d) it was found that there was no express bar against the Respondent No.2 from holding the suit building and there was no illegality in the Sale Deed, dated 21-04-2014 and other related docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and the Respondent No.1 jointly and she therefore earned 50% of the income therein. That, the Suit of the Appellant deserves to be dismissed as there is no proof of his ownership by way of documentary evidence and the plea of benami transaction is an afterthought besides being legally untenable. 10. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that the bogey of benami transaction has been raised subsequently as an afterthought. That, the Appellant was merely a Guarantor to the loan of ₹ 90,00,000/- (Rupees ninety lakhs) only, obtained by the Respondent No.1 for the purposes of renovation of her building to transform it into a Hotel. Before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Guwahati the Appellant was the Power of Attorney holder of the Respondent No.1, he however made no claim of ownership of property. That, his claim of ownership and benami transaction arose only after one Bimal Kumar Jain filed a Title Suit No.412 of 2013 (Bimal Kumar Jain vs. Smt. Kamal Kumari Subba and Another) before the Learned Civil Judge, East Sikkim, at Gangtok, in which Second Appeal was filed in this Court. It is not disputed by the Appellant that the documents of Title are in the name of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suit properties. Similarly, Exhibit 189 to Exhibit 206 are of no assistance whatsoever to establish even the prima facie case of the Appellant, this despite walking meticulously through the evidence and documents relied on by him. It thus emerges with clarity that he has no documentary evidence whatsoever to verify his claim of ownership over the suit property. To a large extent the documents indicate amounts of money received by the Appellant from his lottery business, but this alone does not suffice to establish that he purchased the suit property sans specific trail of income, investment, viz., purchase of the suit property, and registration of it in his name. 14. Now, coming to the question of benami transaction. Section 2(9)(A)(b)(iii) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, provides as follows; 2. .. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) benami transaction means,- (A) a transaction or an arrangement- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
