TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Property ownership suit dismissed as time-barred and undervalued, plaintiff penalized with heavy costs</h1> <h3>Leena Mehta Versus Vijaya Myne and Ors.</h3> The court dismissed the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC due to being time-barred, undervalued, and a misuse of the judicial process. The plaintiff's claim ... - Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the dismissal of a suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, property ownership dispute, time-barred claim, improper valuation of the suit, applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, and misuse of the judicial process.Property Ownership Dispute: The plaintiff filed a suit claiming ownership of a property registered in the name of her mother, alleging that the property actually belonged to her father. The plaintiff sought a declaration of her 1/4th share in the property and requested a partition. The defendant had entered into an agreement to sell the property, prompting the plaintiff's suit. The court found the suit time-barred, as it should have been filed within three years of the property transfer in 1975.Improper Valuation of the Suit: The court noted that the plaintiff undervalued the suit, failing to pay the appropriate court fee. The plaintiff claimed a share valued at Rs. 37,50,000 but should have valued it at Rs. 1,50,00,000. The suit was also undervalued for the purpose of a declaration regarding the property's ownership. The court deemed the suit not maintainable due to the non-payment of the correct court fee.Applicability of Benami Transactions Act: The defendant argued that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act did not apply to the property in question, as it was purchased in the name of the wife. The court clarified that under the Act, property purchased in the wife's name is presumed to be for her benefit, making her the absolute owner. The court emphasized that the property was rightfully owned by the wife, as per the conveyance deed executed by the Delhi Development Authority.Misuse of Judicial Process: The court viewed the suit as a misuse of the judicial process, filed with a malicious intent to obstruct the defendant's right to specific performance of an agreement. The suit was deemed a tool of harassment and dismissed with heavy costs to deter such misuse in the future.Conclusion: The court allowed the application, dismissing the suit with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000. Half of the cost was to be paid to the defendant, and the other half was to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Failure to pay the cost within 30 days would result in recovery through execution, authorized by the defendant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
