9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of properties left behind in Pakistan was allotted property No. F-259, New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi which was property of the HUF; (c) B.D. Batra died on 3rd June, 1955 leaving two sons viz. K.N. Batra and S.K. Batra and property No. F-259, New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi belonged to the HUF of K.N. Batra and S.K. Batra; (d) as per mutual settlement between K.N. Batra and S.K. Batra, K.N. Batra in lieu of his share in property No. F-259, New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi took money from S.K. Batra and from the said monies brought property No. A-2/27, Janakpuri, New Delhi in the name of his wife viz. Kanta Batra; (e) Kanta Batra died on 22nd March, 2015 leaving defendants no. 1 to 3 as her sons and the plaintiff and defendants no. 4 and 5 as her grand children; (f) that since property No. A-2/27, Janakpuri, New Delhi has been bought from the funds received on partition of HUF property F-259, New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, though in the name of Kanta Batra wife of K.N. Batra, would also be HUF property and the plaintiff by birth would have a share therein. 2. The suit came up before this Court first on 1st August, 2018 when, without recording any reasons as to the maintainability thereof the same was e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, has no rights in the property. 9. What immediately strikes one in the face is that the plaintiff has not filed any documents with respect to property no. F-259, New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi with respect whereto it is claimed was a HUF property and out of share wherein the property no. A-2/27, Janakpuri, New Delhi was acquired. 10. The counsel for the plaintiff states that since the plaintiff has made averments in the plaint to the effect that property no. F-259, New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi was a HUF property and property no. A-2/27, Janakpuri, New Delhi was acquired from funds received for giving up share in property no. F-259, New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, even if has not filed any documents, the plaintiff has to be given an opportunity to prove the case set-up. It is stated that Kanta Batra was a housewife with no source of income. 11. The counsel for the defendants no. 1, 2 & 4 states that defendant no. 3 Ratnakar Batra, being the father of the plaintiff, has instituted Test. Cas. with respect to a document claimed to be the Will of Kanta Batra and which Test. Cas. is pending adjudication. 12. On enquiry as to who appears for defendant no. 3 Ratnakar Batra, one lady who claims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e joint family and it includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property; (ii) that a Hindu female, is not a coparcener; (iii) that even the right to reunite is limited under the Hindu law to males; (iv) that a female member of such family cannot blend her separate property, even if she is an absolute owner thereof, with the joint family property; (v) that if a Hindu female, who is a member of an undivided family, impresses her absolute, exclusive property with the character of joint family property, she creates new claimants to her property, to the exclusion of herself, because not being a coparcener, she has no right to demand a share in the joint family property by asking for a partition; she has no right of survivorship and is entitled only to be maintained out of the joint family property; her right to demand a share in the joint family property is contingent, on partition taking place between her husband and his sons; (vi) that thus the expression 'blending' is inapposite in the case of a Hindu female who puts her separate property, be it her absolute property or limited estate, in the joint family stock; (vii) that the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e person in whose name the property held is a coparcener in a HUF and the property is held for the benefit of coparceners in the family or where the person in whose name the property is held is a trustee or otherwise standing in a fiduciary capacity and who holds the property for the benefit of any other person for whom he is a trustee or for whom he stand in such capacity. However, the said exceptions would not be attracted inasmuch as neither can a Hindu female be a coparcener nor is Kanta Batra said to be standing or stood in law in a fiduciary capacity qua her husband or qua the alleged HUF. 19. The aforesaid Act has been amended with effect from 10th August, 2016 and is now known as Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Section 4 of the Amended Act also bars a suit to enforce any right in respect of a property held benami. 20. The plea of the plaintiff in this suit, of Kanta Batra being the benami owner of the property and HUF of K.N. Batra being the real owner of the property, is in the teeth of the said law. 21. As far as the judgments cited by the counsel for the defendant no. 1 are concerned, (i) Ashok Sardana and Marabasappa supra concerned with claims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
