2022 (3) TMI 1007 - HC - Benami Property

Property ownership dispute resolved in favor of Respondents; Appellant's claims dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Appellant's claims regarding ownership of the property, legitimacy of property purchase by Respondent No.1, and authority to deal with the property ... Benami transaction - absolute owner of suit property - Respondent No.2 in his written statement denied and disputed the Suit of the Appellant as being based on falsity and concealment of facts - Whether the Defendant No.1 is the bona fide and absolute owner of the suit property having purchased the same from her Stridhan and had the right to sell the suit property to Defendant No.2? - HELD THAT:- As perused documents Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P206 relied on by the Appellant. The documents have no connection whatsoever with the instant matter in which the Appellant is primarily to prove that he is the owner of the suit premises as claimed by him. Appellant is neither the applicant nor does the document mention him. Exhibit P194 is a money receipt executed between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 for purchase of the suit properties for a consideration value of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three crores) only. The Appellant is a witness to the execution of this document of his own volition, thereby well aware of what transpired between the Respondents regarding sale and purchase of the suit property. He lodged no complaint of having been coerced by the Respondents to execute any document before any authority. The other documents relied on by the Appellant being Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 187 pertain to the lottery business of M/s. Bindhya Agency with its Office in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, and lend no credence to the claim of the Appellant with regard to purchase and ownership of the suit properties. Similarly, Exhibit 189 to Exhibit 206 are of no assistance whatsoever to establish even the prima facie case of the Appellant, this despite walking meticulously through the evidence and documents relied on by him. It thus emerges with clarity that he has no documentary evidence whatsoever to verify his claim of ownership over the suit property. To a large extent the documents indicate amounts of money received by the Appellant from his lottery business, but this alone does not suffice to establish that he purchased the suit property sans specific trail of income, investment, viz., purchase of the suit property, and registration of it in his name. It thus stands to conclude that the Appellant failed to establish even a prima facie case and his Suit was rightly dismissed. The concurrent findings of the Learned Courts below are upheld. The impugned Judgment and Decree of the Learned First Appellate Court warrants no interference.Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Ownership of the suit property.2. Legitimacy of the property purchase by Respondent No.1.3. Right of Respondent No.1 to sell the suit property to Respondent No.2.4. Legality of the Sale Deed and related documents.5. Bona fide purchaser status of Respondent No.2.6. Authority of the Plaintiff to deal with the property as Karta of the family.7. Claim of benami transaction by the Plaintiff.Detailed Analysis:1. Ownership of the Suit Property:The Appellant claimed ownership of the property, asserting it was purchased with his earnings but registered in his wife's name (Respondent No.1). The Trial Court found against the Appellant, noting his inability to prove the property was bought benami. The Appellant failed to provide documentary evidence to support his claim, and the property was legally registered in Respondent No.1's name.2. Legitimacy of Property Purchase by Respondent No.1:Respondent No.1 asserted she purchased the property using her Stridhan. The Trial Court accepted her claim, supported by her status as a 50% partner in the lottery business, thus having her own income. The Appellant's argument that Respondent No.1 lacked the financial means was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.3. Right of Respondent No.1 to Sell the Property to Respondent No.2:The Trial Court ruled that Respondent No.1, being the bona fide and absolute owner, had the right to sell the property. The Appellant's claim of coercion into signing the NOC was not substantiated with any complaints or evidence.4. Legality of the Sale Deed and Related Documents:The Sale Deed dated 21-04-2014 and related documents were found legal and valid. There was no express bar against Respondent No.2 holding the property, and the transaction was not in contravention of any laws.5. Bona Fide Purchaser Status of Respondent No.2:Respondent No.2 was deemed a bona fide purchaser, having paid the consideration amount for the property. The Appellant's claim of a fictitious NOC was dismissed as unproven.6. Authority of the Plaintiff as Karta:The Trial Court found no evidence of a Joint Hindu Family or coparcenary, thus dismissing the Appellant's claim of sole authority over the property as Karta.7. Claim of Benami Transaction:The Appellant's claim of a benami transaction was rejected. The Court highlighted that the Appellant could not provide a specific trail of income leading to the purchase of the property. The legal provision under Section 2(9)(A)(b)(iii) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, was cited, which did not support the Appellant's claim.Conclusion:The Appellant's inability to substantiate his claims with documentary evidence led to the dismissal of his suit. The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were upheld, affirming Respondent No.1's ownership and the legality of the sale to Respondent No.2. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.