2017 (1) TMI 1814 - DSC - Benami Property

Plaintiff's Property Ownership Claim Dismissed Under Benami Law: Lack of Proof, Bona Fide Purchase Issue

The court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the property despite the legal presumption favoring the first defendant under ... Benami Transactions - absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property - suit filed by the Plaintiff to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property and for consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for costs. FACTs:- The Plaintiff married one Yasodha as his first wife, she died in the year 1979. Thereafter, he married one Vijayalakshmi and Subsequently divorced her in the year 1985. After divorce the first defendant joined with the plaintiff in the year 1986 and they lived jointly as husband and wife. Two sons namely Kalaiarasan and Thellamuthan were born to them. The Plaintiff was a retired Government Servant. Since he was working at the time of purchase of the suit properties, he purchased the same in the name of the first defendant under the Sale Deeds dated 9.11.1994 and 24.10.1994. The properties were purchased in the name of the first defendant for the sentimental reasons HELD THAT:- Relationship between the parties are admitted. The first defendant is the third wife of the plaintiff. Admittedly the title deeds for the suit properties stands in the name of the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, he had purchased the property in the name of the first defendant. On the other hand, in the Written Statement, it has been alleged that the first defendant purchased the properties out of her own funds, she borrowed money from her parents and sisters. Now the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title contrary to the documents of title. So the entire burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that he had purchased the property in the name of the plaintiff. Purchasing the property in the name of the wife and daughter is not covered under the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act. However even in the plaint the plaintiff was reluctant to describe that the first defendant as his wife. Whatever it is the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove his case. order to prove that the property was purchased by him, he has chosen to file original title deeds Ex.A1 relating to suit Item No.1. The plaintiff is none other than the husband of the first defendant. In the said circumstances, mere possession of document with the husband does not create any inference about the title of the property. Considering that portion of the evidence and in the absence of any documents to show the receipt of money from her parents, this Court has no option except to hold that the first defendant had no sufficient source to purchase the property. Considering the contribution of the plaintiff to purchase the property Ex.A14 passbook was filed by the plaintiff, on the date of Ex A3 24.10.1994 a sum of Rs 27,000 was withdrawn from the plaintiff's savings account through the witness in EX A3 namely Anbumani. Considering all those circumstances this Court finds there are chances of purchasing the property by the plaintiff in the name of the first defendant. In this case, the plaintiff as well as the defendant executed Mortgage deed and sale deed in order to settle the score between them . The mortgage deeds executed by the plaintiff infavour of some third parties are without any right to execute such mortgage. The sale deed executed in favour of D2 is hit by Lis pendens. Further, with reference to cause of action, there is no evidence to show that the defendants are tried to disturb the possession of the plaintiff. Additional issue - Whether the second defendant is the bona fide purchaser for the value? - During the pendency of the suit, the DW2 viz the second defendant has purchased the property Item No.1 on 15.5.2013. This suit was pending from the year 2009. When the suit is pending, there is no question of bonafide purchaser for value. It is clearly hit by lis pendens. She had purchased the property without the original title deed. That itself would create doubt on the second defendant's bonafide. Getting sale deed without perusing the original sale deed which is in possession of the plaintiff and filed in to the Court itself shows that the second defendant is not a bonafide purchaser. Hence this Court answers this Additional Issue against the second defendant. Issues:1. Ownership of the suit property and injunction against interference.2. Relief entitled to the plaintiff.3. Bonafide purchase by the second defendant.Analysis:Issue 1:The plaintiff claimed ownership of the property purchased in the name of the first defendant, his wife. The burden of proof lay on the plaintiff to establish his claim. The plaintiff, a retired Government Servant, contended that he funded the purchase, while the first defendant argued she used her own funds. The court analyzed the evidence, including the plaintiff's savings withdrawals and the first defendant's lack of independent income. Despite the property being in the wife's name, the court applied the Benami Transaction Act, which presumes such purchases are for the wife's benefit. The court found the plaintiff failed to prove ownership, considering the legal presumption in favor of the first defendant.Issue 2:The plaintiff sought a declaration of title and an injunction. The plaintiff relied on legal precedents predating the Benami Act, which the court deemed inapplicable. The court noted the plaintiff's execution of mortgage and sale deeds with no legal basis, and the sale to the second defendant was affected by lis pendens. As there was no evidence of disturbance by the defendants and no cause of action for an injunction, the court ruled against granting the relief sought by the plaintiff.Additional Issue:The second defendant's purchase during the pending suit raised the question of bona fide purchase. The court found the purchase affected by lis pendens, as the second defendant acquired the property without the original title deed. This lack of due diligence cast doubt on the second defendant's bona fides, leading the court to rule against her on this issue.Conclusion:The court dismissed the suit based on the findings related to ownership, relief entitlement, and the second defendant's purchase. The judgment highlighted the application of the Benami Act, the lack of legal basis for the plaintiff's actions, and the impact of lis pendens on the second defendant's purchase. No costs were awarded in the judgment delivered on January 3, 2017, by the District Court, Chengalpet.