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>Court lacks jurisdiction over Gurgaon property, Benami claim rejected, partition denied, applications for plaint rejection granted.</h1> <h3>Hemant Satti Versus Mohan Satti and Ors.</h3> The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the Gurgaon property, advising the Plaintiff to seek remedies in the appropriate jurisdiction. ... - Issues Involved:1. Territorial Jurisdiction2. Benami Transaction3. Partition of Properties4. Shares and DebenturesSummary:1. Territorial Jurisdiction:The Plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction concerning properties in Gurgaon and Delhi. The Defendants argued that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over the Gurgaon property. The Court agreed, stating that the Gurgaon property is outside its territorial limits. Consequently, the Plaintiff can seek appropriate remedies for the Gurgaon property in a Court of appropriate jurisdiction.2. Benami Transaction:The Plaintiff claimed that the Delhi property, although registered in the name of Defendant No. 2 (mother), was purchased by their late father and should be treated as joint family property. The Defendants contended that the property was bought by Defendant No. 1 and his wife, and registered in the mother's name with the understanding that it would be transferred to Defendant No. 1 or his wife. The Court held that the Plaintiff's plea of a Benami transaction is barred u/s 3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, as the Plaintiff failed to plead that the property was not acquired for the benefit of the mother.3. Partition of Properties:The Plaintiff sought a preliminary decree of partition for the suit properties, claiming a 1/5th share for each legal heir. The Court noted that the Delhi property belonged absolutely to Defendant No. 2 and she was free to deal with it as she pleased. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be granted the relief of partition for the Delhi property, and such a relief is barred u/r VII Rule 11(d), CPC.4. Shares and Debentures:The Plaintiff also sought partition of shares and debentures jointly owned by their late father and Defendant No. 2. The Court ruled that since these assets have now come entirely to the share of Defendant No. 2, the question of partition during her lifetime does not arise.Conclusion:The applications for rejection of the plaint are allowed. The Plaintiff is granted liberty to seek relief for the Gurgaon property in other appropriate proceedings. The interim order is vacated, and all pending applications are disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
