2021 (9) TMI 317 - SCH - Benami Property

Supreme Court upholds High Court decision on property dispute involving gift deed and ownership defenses

Anil Gulati Versus Smt. Promila Gulati

Anil Gulati Versus Smt. Promila Gulati - TMI Issues:1. Challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi.2. Claim for mandatory and permanent injunction by the plaintiff-respondent.3. Defense raised by the defendant regarding the property in question.4. Application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.5. Interpretation of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.6. Applicability of Order XII Rule 6, Order XIV Rule 1, and Order XV Rule 1 of the CPC.7. Dispute regarding fiduciary capacity and benami holding of the property.8. Comparison with a previous judgment regarding fiduciary relationships.9. Finding of the Division Bench regarding blending of the property in the Joint Hindu Family.Analysis:The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. The plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit seeking a decree for mandatory and permanent injunction to obtain vacant possession of a property, claiming ownership through a gift deed executed by her father. The defendant, in response, raised various defenses related to the property's ownership and family business activities. An application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was filed, leading to the Single Judge decreeing the suit, which was later upheld by the Division Bench.The main argument raised by the appellant was regarding the interpretation of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, claiming that the plaintiff held the property in a fiduciary capacity and thus exempt from the Act's provisions. However, the Court found that the plaintiff being a family member did not establish a fiduciary relationship with the defendant. The Court also noted that the suit was decreed based on Order XII Rule 6, although Order XIV Rule 1 and Order XV Rule 1 should have been applied as no triable issue arose from the pleadings.The appellant cited a previous judgment, which was deemed inapplicable to the present case due to differences in the nature of the dispute and the absence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties. The Division Bench's finding on blending the property in the Joint Hindu Family was deemed irrelevant as the case did not fall under the Act's specified clauses. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, with the plaintiff agreeing to forgo mesne profits and refunding a specified amount upon the defendant handing over possession of the property.In conclusion, the Court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Benami Property Transactions Act, the lack of a fiduciary relationship, and the application of relevant CPC rules, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal and resolution of the pending matters.