Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 862/2017
th
% 13 October, 2017
SUNITA RAJPUT ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. D.K. Mehta and Mr.
Rishabh Mehta, Advocates.
versus
SUSHEELA DEVI SAINI & ORS. ..... Respondents
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the plaintiff in the suit impugning
the judgment of the trial court dated 8.8.2017 by which the trial court
has dismissed the suit for partition filed by the appellant/plaintiff with
respect to the property D-16, Green Park, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as „suit property‟).
2. The facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff pleaded
that the suit property was no doubt purchased by the sale deed dated
7.12.1959 in the name of defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the suit, but actually
RFA No.862/2017 Page 1 of 10
this property was owned by the father Sh. Waryam Singh because
funds for the purchase of this property were given by the father Sh.
Waryam Singh. It was also pleaded that the defendant nos. 1 to 3
were minors at the time when the sale deed dated 7.12.1959 was
executed in their favour and that they had no source of finance for
purchase of the suit property. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 filed a written
statement and pleaded that they were the exclusive owners of the suit
property and the father was not the owner of the suit property. It was
pleaded by defendant nos. 1 to 3 that they were owners in terms of the
sale deed dated 7.12.1959. It was also pleaded that the case of the
appellant/plaintiff that since father had paid the moneys and therefore
defendant nos. 1 to 3 would not be the owners of the suit property
would be barred by Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as „the Benami Act‟).
3. I may note that the original defendant no. 1 in the suit Sh.
Kushal Pal Singh expired during the pendency of the suit and he was
represented by his legal heirs who are now respondent nos. 1 to 4 in
this appeal. Reference to respondent nos. 1 to 4, therefore, wherever
the context so requires, will be reference to defendant no. 1.
Defendant no. 2 in the suit was Sh. Vijay Kumar Saini and who is
RFA No.862/2017 Page 2 of 10
sued as respondent no. 5 in the present appeal. Defendant no. 3 in the
suit was Sh. Vinay Kumar Saini who expired during the pendency of
the suit and was thereafter represented by his legal heirs and who are
respondent nos. 6 to 8 in the present appeal. Reference to respondent
nos. 6 to 8 would therefore include reference to defendant no. 3 or
these respondents along with respondent nos. 1 to 4 will also be
included in the general expression of defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the suit
who filed a common written statement.
4. After pleadings were complete the trial court framed the
following issues:-
“1 Whether the suit is not barred by limitation? OPP
2. Whether the property bearing number D-16, Green Park, New Delhi was
Benami property of late Mr. Waryam Singh? OPP
3. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of
Bemani Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition, if so, what are the shares of
parties? OPP
5. Relief.”
5. Trial court has held that the suit is clearly barred by the
Benami Act because as per the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the
Benami Act once the property by means of a title document is in the
name of a particular person, then that particular person (defendant nos.
1 to 3 in this case) has to be taken as an owner of the property
although funds/consideration for the purchase of the property came
RFA No.862/2017 Page 3 of 10
from the third person (father Sh. Waryam Singh in this case) and who
claims right in the property. By virtue of the Benami Act the benami
owner becomes the real owner. In the present case the sale deed of the
suit property dated 7.12.1959 was admittedly in the name of defendant
nos. 1 to 3, and therefore the claim of the property only being benami
in the hands of defendant nos. 1 to 3, and that actually father Sh.
Waryam Singh was the owner on account of father having paid the
consideration, would be a plea barred by the Benami Act.
6. The only way in which the suit would not be barred by
the provision of Section 4(1) of the Benami Act was if their existed an
HUF and the property was purchased in the name of a coparcener of a
family or if the property is purchased in trust or by a person standing
in a fiduciary capacity vide Section 4(3) of the Benami Act. In the
present case, a reference to the plaint shows that there is no averment
that their existed any HUF of Sh. Waryam Singh and his family. HUF
is a legal concept and such a concept of existence of HUF and its
property comes into existence if a property is inherited by a male
person from his three paternal ancestors prior to passing of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956. After passing of the Hindu Succession Act
even if a property is inherited by a person from his three paternal
RFA No.862/2017 Page 4 of 10
ancestors, inheritance is not as an HUF in the hands of the person who
inherits the same but it is inherited as a self-acquired property of that
person vide Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others Vs.
Chander Sen and Others, (1986) 3 SCC 567 and Yudhishter Vs.
Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204. The only other way in which an
HUF can be created is that after 1956 the property of a person is
thrown in common hotchpotch.
7. A reading of the plaint shows that there is no cause of
action pleaded of the suit property being inherited prior to passing of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or that the suit property was thrown
into a common hotchpotch on a particular date, month and year.
Also, in any case even assuming a plea was there of an existence of
HUF, there is no evidence whatsoever led by the appellant/plaintiff
that there existed an HUF and how that HUF came into existence and
how that HUF‟s existence with its properties was then found recorded
in various records including public records. Appellant/plaintiff
therefore cannot have the benefit of the exception contained in Section
4(3) of the Benami Act that the suit property should not be held to be a
benami property but should be held to be HUF property.
RFA No.862/2017 Page 5 of 10
8. The other exception of Section 4(3) of the Benami Act is
that the suit property was purchased in trust by the defendant nos. 1 to
3, however, even that cause of action is absent in the plaint. Also, no
such case was argued on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff in the court
below that the suit property has been purchased in trust or by the
defendant nos. 1 to 3 in a fiduciary capacity. Therefore, even second
exception contained in Section 4(3) of the Benami Act is not available
to the appellant/plaintiff.
9. I may note that the court below has referred to the subject
sale deed dated 7.12.1959, that the sale deed does not refer to the
defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the suit as minors, and no evidence was led by
the appellant/plaintiff as to how the defendant nos. 1 to 3 were minors
when sale deed was executed in their favour on 7.12.1959. Also, in
law there is no bar to a minor being beneficiary of a contract of
ownership of an immovable property, and no doubt a minor cannot
enter into a contract, but a minor can always be admitted to the
benefits of a contract. One such example is provision of Section 30 of
the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 which allows a minor to be admitted
to the benefits of partnership.
RFA No.862/2017 Page 6 of 10
10.(i) Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has again
argued that since the defendant nos. 1 to 3, even assuming that they
were major, were hardly of 18-20 years and consequently they would
have no source of income to purchase the suit property in terms of the
sale deed dated 7.12.1959 and that the sale deed shows that
consideration of the property was paid by Sh. Waryam Singh and
therefore the suit property is to be held as not owned by defendant nos.
1 to 3 but by Sh. Waryam Singh and consequently appellant/plaintiff
as a daughter of Sh. Waryam Singh gets the share in the suit property
as Sh. Waryam Singh died intestate.
(ii) I cannot agree with the argument urged on behalf of the
appellant/plaintiff, inasmuch as, even if father has paid the moneys for
purchase of the property, that would only mean that the father in fact
gifted moneys to defendant nos. 1 to 3 for purchasing/taking
ownership of the suit property in the name of defendant nos. 1 to 3 i.e
defendant nos. 1 to 3 were given ownership as regards the suit
property. Trial court also rightly notes that after purchase of the suit
property in the name of defendant nos. 1 to 3 by the sale deed dated
7.12.1959 there is no further act done by the late father Sh. Waryam
Singh in the form of making of any Will or making of a declaration or
RFA No.862/2017 Page 7 of 10
drawing up of a document that the suit property will not vest with the
defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the suit but will vest with the entire family.
(iii) Accordingly, in my opinion, the mere fact that the father Sh.
Waryam Singh paid consideration of the suit property would not make
the property as owned by the father, and more so because such a plea
in fact would be a plea which will be barred by Section 4(1) of the
Benami Act.
11.(i) Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff finally argued
that there was an earlier partition suit filed by one sister Smt. Pushpa
Sahni, respondent no. 9 in the present appeal and defendant no. 4 in
the earlier suit, and though the suit was dismissed in default, however
an order was passed in this suit on 2.5.1997 which shows that it was
agreed that the suit property is a property of the family.
(ii) I again cannot agree with this argument urged on behalf of the
appellant/plaintiff and the trial court in this regard has rightly held that
the order dated 2.5.1997 passed in suit no. 2526/1989 by a learned
single Judge of this court cannot amount to an admission by the
defendant nos. 1 to 3 of the present suit that the suit property was a
family property and it had to be divided among all the family
RFA No.862/2017 Page 8 of 10
members. Trial court also rightly notes that the learned Single Judge
who passed the procedural day‟s order in the suit on 2.5.1997
specifically recorded that a proper application was to be filed and that
in fact when the order dated 2.5.1997 was passed only one brother
namely Sh. Kushal Pal Singh was represented and other two bothers
being the defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the present suit were not present
when the order was passed on 2.5.1997. For the sake of convenience
the order dated 2.5.1997 is reproduced as under:-
“02.05.1997
Present: Mr. I.C. Sudhir of the Plaintiff.
Ms. Sunita Harish for Defendant no. 1.
Defendant No. 1 in person as well.
Defendant No. 2 in person.
Defendant No. 5 in person.
Mr. Vikram Dhokaji, for Mr.Jawahar Lal Alwani, the purchaser.
Suit No. 2526/89, I.A.s 4817, 7053/94, 2189, 12600/95
Learned Counsel for the parties and the defendants, who are present in
person, state that in so far as the Safdarjung Enclave Property is concerned,
the same has been sold by the defendant No. 1. They further, state that is so
far as the Green park Property located at D-16, Green Park, New Delhi, is
concerned, the same can be sold and the proceeds thereof can be shared by
the parties. The parties may file a proper application for this purpose.
The counsel of Mr. Jawahar Lal Alwani, purchaser of B-7, Extension -16,
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi property is present. He will furnish details
of the cheques through which the sale consideration was paid to defendant
No. 1. In this regard an affidavit be filed by Mr. Alwani. The affidavit
should be filed within four weeks.
It is stated by learned counsel for defendant No. 1 that some money received
from the purchaser was deposited by defendant No. 1 in the State Bank of
Patiala, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi branch. However, she is not in a
position to give the account number. The defendant No. 2, who is present in
person, also expresses his inability to give the account number of his
mother. Let a communication be issued to the Manager of the above said
bank for locating the account number of defendant No. 1, Smt. Vidya Wati,
widow of Shri Waryam Singh.
RFA No.862/2017 Page 9 of 10
th
List the matter on 29 May, 1997, in Chamber at 4:00 P.M., on which date
some official of the State Bank of Patiala, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
branch will be present in Court.
A copy of this Order be given DASTI to learned counsel for the plaintiff so
that the Plaintiff could get in touch with the Manager of the above said
Bank.”
12. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff also sought to
argue that in the earlier suit there are admissions of the brothers in
their written statement that the suit property is owned by the family,
however, on going through the written statement filed by the brothers
in the earlier suit no.2526/1989 I do not even remotely find any
admission that the suit property at Green Park was a family property
and had to be divided between all the family members. In fact, if this
was so then the earlier suit would have been decreed under Order XII
Rule 6 CPC and which was not so done and that the suit filed by the
sister Smt. Pushpa Sahsni, respondent no. 9 herein, defendant no. 4 in
the earlier suit, was in fact dismissed in default.
13. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in
the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
OCTOBER 13, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK
RFA No.862/2017 Page 10 of 10