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>Counter-claim seeking property ownership dismissed for lack of evidence and barred under Benami Transactions Act.</h1> <h3>Vinay Khanna Versus Krishna Kumari Khanna</h3> Vinay Khanna Versus Krishna Kumari Khanna - TMI Issues Involved:1. Ownership of Property No. M-174, Greater Kailash Part-II, New Delhi.2. Mental capacity of Prem Prakash Khanna and Krishna Kumari Khanna.3. Validity of Power of Attorney and Gift Deed.4. Partition of the property.5. Counter-claim by Ravinder Khanna regarding ownership and benami transactions.6. Rejection of the counter-claim under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.Detailed Analysis:1. Ownership of Property No. M-174, Greater Kailash Part-II, New Delhi:The plaintiffs, Vinay Khanna and Anil Kumar Khanna, sought a declaration that the property is owned by the Joint Hindu Family (HUF) comprising the plaintiffs and the defendants. They argued that despite the property being recorded in the names of their parents, it should be considered HUF property, giving all family members a share.2. Mental Capacity of Prem Prakash Khanna and Krishna Kumari Khanna:The plaintiffs claimed that Prem Prakash Khanna was suffering from old age dementia and cognitive failure, making him incompetent to take any decision. They also alleged that Krishna Kumari Khanna was under the absolute dominance and control of Anu Narula and was incompetent to exercise her free will.3. Validity of Power of Attorney and Gift Deed:The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Power of Attorney dated 24th July 2015 and the consequent Gift Deed dated 4th August 2015, executed by Krishna Kumari Khanna on behalf of herself and as attorney of Prem Prakash Khanna in favor of Anu Narula, are null and void.4. Partition of the Property:The plaintiffs requested the partition of the property, asserting their right to a share in the HUF property.5. Counter-Claim by Ravinder Khanna:Ravinder Khanna filed a counter-claim seeking a declaration that he is the exclusive owner of the property, asserting that he contributed the purchase consideration. He also sought a declaration that the Gift Deed in favor of Anu Narula is illegal and a mandatory injunction directing Anu Narula to deposit the original Power of Attorney in court.6. Rejection of the Counter-Claim under Order VII Rule 11 CPC:Anu Narula filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for the rejection of Ravinder Khanna's counter-claim. The court considered whether the counter-claim disclosed any cause of action and whether it was maintainable in view of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.Court's Findings:On Ownership and HUF Claim:The court noted that the property was recorded in the names of Prem Prakash Khanna and Krishna Kumari Khanna. The plaintiffs' claim that the property was HUF property was not substantiated with sufficient evidence. The court suggested that the claim could be confined to setting aside the Gift Deed on the grounds of the parents' mental incapacity rather than on the HUF ground.On Mental Capacity and Validity of Documents:The court acknowledged the plaintiffs' allegations regarding the mental incapacity of Prem Prakash Khanna and the undue influence over Krishna Kumari Khanna. However, it emphasized the need for concrete evidence to support these claims.On Counter-Claim and Benami Transactions:The court found that Ravinder Khanna's counter-claim did not disclose any cause of action. The court held that merely sending money for the purchase and construction of the property did not make Ravinder Khanna the owner in law. The right, if any, was limited to the recovery of the amounts paid with interest. The counter-claim was also barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, which prohibits suits to enforce any right in respect of benami property.Rejection of Counter-Claim:The court allowed the application for rejection of the counter-claim, finding it to be not properly valued for court fees and jurisdiction and lacking a cause of action. The counter-claim was dismissed.Conclusion:The court dismissed Ravinder Khanna's counter-claim and emphasized the importance of concrete evidence in claims of mental incapacity and undue influence. The court also highlighted the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act in rejecting the counter-claim. The primary suit for declaration and partition remained pending, with the court suggesting a focus on the validity of the Gift Deed based on mental capacity grounds.
TaxTMI 