Daughter-in-law held as trustee under Benami Act; Mother-in-law declared sole owner of property

The court held that the daughter-in-law could be considered a trustee or in a fiduciary capacity for her mother-in-law under the Benami Transaction Act. The suit was not barred by limitation as the cause of action arose later. It was established that the property was purchased by the mother-in-law and held in trust by the daughter-in-law for the family's benefit. The court declared the mother-in-law as the sole owner of the property, rejecting claims from the daughter-in-law's family for possession and mesne profits. The court's decision addressed all issues comprehensively, leading to different outcomes in separate suits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the daughter-in-law could be considered a trustee or a person standing in a fiduciary capacity under Section 4(3)(b) of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
3. Whether the property was actually purchased by the mother-in-law in the name of the daughter-in-law.
4. Whether the daughter-in-law held the property in trust for the mother-in-law.
5. Whether the daughter-in-law's family had any rights to the property.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Fiduciary Capacity and Trustee Relationship:
The primary issue was whether the daughter-in-law (Smt. Sudha Dayal) could be considered a trustee or a person standing in a fiduciary capacity for her mother-in-law (Smt. Shakuntala Devi) under Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Transaction Act. The court held that in Indian society, it is not unusual for a daughter-in-law to be treated as a trustee of the mother-in-law. The relationship between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law can be one of confidence, trust, and belief, which fits within the definition of fiduciary capacity. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Vinod Kumar Dhall v. Dharampal Dhall, which recognized that properties held in fiduciary capacities are exceptions to the prohibition under the Benami Transaction Act.

2. Limitation:
The court addressed whether the suit was barred by limitation. It was observed that no dispute arose while Smt. Sudha Dayal was alive, and the property continued to remain in her name after her death in 1987. The cause of action for Smt. Shakuntala Devi arose only when the family of Smt. Sudha Dayal challenged her position in 2014. Therefore, the suit was not barred by limitation.

3. Actual Purchase of Property:
The court examined whether the property was actually purchased by Smt. Shakuntala Devi in the name of her daughter-in-law. The evidence included bank passbooks, letters, and various financial documents showing that Smt. Shakuntala Devi had sufficient resources and had made payments towards the property. The court concluded that the property was indeed purchased by Smt. Shakuntala Devi, although it was registered in the name of Smt. Sudha Dayal.

4. Trust and Beneficiary Relationship:
The court found that Smt. Sudha Dayal held the property in trust for her mother-in-law, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, for the benefit of the entire family. This conclusion was supported by various documents, including a letter from Smt. Sudha Dayal expressing her intention to gift the property to her mother-in-law, and the fact that the family had been residing in the property for over 40 years without any disruption.

5. Rights of Daughter-in-law’s Family:
The court addressed the rights of Smt. Sudha Dayal's family, particularly Mr. Mayank Dayal, who sought possession and mesne profits. The court held that Smt. Shakuntala Devi was the sole owner of the property, but the declaration would enure to all her legal heirs, not just Mr. Vinay Dayal. The court rejected the relief of possession and mesne profits, as both families were in occupation of different portions of the property and the validity of a will dated 9th September 2015 had to be independently proved.

Separate Judgments Delivered:
The court delivered separate judgments for each suit:

Suit No. 2441/14:
- Issue No.4 was decided against the Plaintiff, Mr. Mayank Dayal.
- The suit was dismissed, and the relief of possession sought in I.A. 6501/17 was rejected.

Suit No. 1640/14:
- Smt. Shakuntala Devi was declared the sole owner of the property.
- A permanent injunction was granted restraining all parties from alienating or transferring any part of the suit property.
- The relief of mesne profits was rejected.

Suit No. 3631/14:
- The mutation and conveyance deed in favor of Mr. Mayank Dayal were canceled.
- Smt. Shakuntala Devi was held to be the sole owner of the property.
- The suit was decreed in terms of Prayer clause 1(b) and (c), while Prayer 1(a) was rejected.

The court's decision comprehensively addressed all the issues involved, providing a detailed analysis of the fiduciary relationship, the actual purchase of the property, and the rights of the involved parties.

---