9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se No. 967, Type-I, Haryana Housing Board Colony, Saraswati Vihar, Gurgaon admeasuring 100 sq. yds. (hereafter the 'Gurgaon property') for a consideration of Rs. 1,55,585. 2. It is further stated that at the same time, Mr. Tek Chand Satti purchased another property at R-18/2, 1st Floor, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 (hereafter the 'Delhi property'). However, the conveyance deed was executed in the name of his wife, i.e., Defendant No. 2. 3. In para 7 of the plaint, it is stated as under: 7. It is respectfully submitted that since the purchase of the property situated at R-18/2, 1st Floor, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi -110092, the said property was at all times treated as Joint Family Property of Late Mr. Tek Chand Satti and his family members and that the Defendant No. 2 was holding the said property in trust for others. It is submitted that till the date of filing of the present suit, the said property has been understood, treated and believed as co-owned property of all the legal heirs of Late Mr. Tek Chand Satti as a joint family property for the common benefit and enjoyment by all such legal heirs. 4. The case of the Plaintiff is that lat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10th April 2000 in the name of the Defendant No. 2 but the entire sale consideration was actually paid by Defendant No. 1 and his wife out of their own funds. It is stated that the title documents were registered in the name of Defendant No. 2 with the understanding that whenever she felt the need, she would transfer the Delhi property in the name of Defendant No. 1 or his wife and nobody else. It is stated that after the purchase of Delhi property in April 2000, the Defendant No. 1 and his wife moved in the Delhi property and had been staying with their family. As far as the Gurgaon property is concerned, it is stated that it is outside the territorial limits of the Court and, therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the said property. As regards the shares and debentures, it is stated to be jointly owned by late Mr. Tek Chand Satti and Defendant No. 2 and therefore no claim could lie on the said properties till such time Defendant No. 2 was alive. 8. In the reply filed to the aforementioned applications, it is reiterated by the Plaintiff that the Delhi property was not purchased out of the funds provided by Defendant No. 1 or his wife but by late Mr. Tek Chand Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Delhi property was in the name of the Defendant No. 2 and has now been transferred to Defendant No. 1 under a registered sale deed. The plea set up by the Plaintiff, according to them, is clearly barred under Section 3 of the BTA since it is not even the Plaintiff's case that the Delhi property was not purchased for the benefit of Defendant No. 2. As regards the Gurgaon property, it is submitted that inasmuch as it is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, no relief in respect thereof can be granted. The shares and debentures are admittedly in the joint names of late Mr. Tek Chand Satti and Defendant No. 2 and during her life time no partition could be sought of that property either. 12. Section 14 of the HSA reads as under: 14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute Property-- (1) Any property possessed by a Female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation.--In this sub-section, property includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu arrears of maintena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is free to deal with the property in any manner which she pleases. (ii) The position under Section 3(2), BTA can be harmonised with Section 14, HSA. Section 3(2), BTA does not dilute the right of a Hindu female to her property under Section 14(1), HSA. It is only where it is able to be proved under Section 3(2), BTA that the property purchased by the husband of the Hindu female in her name was not for her benefit, could a challenge to her absolute right thereto be entertained. (iii) However, in order to prove such a defence, it has to be pleaded, in the first place, to be pleaded. 16. In the present case, on a plain reading of the plaint it is clear that the Plaintiff is setting up a plea of a Benami transaction in respect of the Delhi property. His specific plea is that although the Delhi property stood in the name of mother, it in fact belonged to his father since it was his father who paid the entire sale consideration. If it is a Benami transaction, then under Section 3 of the BTA it cannot be accorded any recognition unless the Plaintiff is able to bring his case under the exceptions under Section 3(2), BTA. In other words, to avoid the bar of Section 3, BTA the Plain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
