AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd aunt and uncle i.e. defendants No.2 and 3. 3. The learned Predecessor of this Court vide ex parte ad interim order dated 02nd December, 2013, directed the defendants to maintain status quo with regard to suit property bearing No.C-117, East of Kailash, New Delhi- 110065 as regards possession and title. On 27th September, 2018, this Court clarified that it had not granted any stay of proceedings in Appeal No.30/2013 i.e. Kuldeep Singh Gulati and Anr. Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Anr. pending under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2017 before the Divisional Commissioner and the said forum was free to proceed with the case, in the event there was no stay order passed by any other Court. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS NO.1, 2 AND 5 4. At the outset, Mr. V.K. Bali, learned senior counsel for defendant No.1, 2 and 5-applicants, submitted that the present suit was not maintainable as an identical suit of the father of plaintiffs being CS(OS) 886/2013 with the same averments and seeking the same relief, after hearing arguments on the very first date of hearing, had been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file other proceedings that may be permi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on his son for his own medical treatment. 9. Learned senior counsel for defendants No.1, 2 and 5-applicants contended that there was no averment in the plaint that Mr. R.P. Gulati, great grandfather of the plaintiffs, had succeeded to any property on demise of his father. He pointed out that there was not even a whisper in the plaint as to what properties were owned by the father of Mr. R.P. Gulati or even by Mr. R.P. Gulati himself. He emphasized that no details of any business or property being inherited by defendant No.1 on the death of Mr. R.P. Gulati had been mentioned in the plaint. 10. Mr. Bali submitted that coparcenary is a creation of law and cannot be created by an act of the parties. He pointed out that in the present case there was no coparcenary property specified or even named and no averment with regard to the hotchpotch or actual blending of properties by the parties. According to him, the only averments in the plaint were with regard to blending of income from salaries. He stated that all the three partnership firms mentioned in the plaint as businesses of the coparcenary had been formed after the death of Mr. R.P. Gulati in 1971. 11. In the alternative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der:- "7. Disability of one of several persons.--Where one of several persons jointly entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is under any such disability, and a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run against them all; but, where no such discharge can be given, time will not run as against any of them until one of them becomes capable of giving such discharge without the concurrence of the others or until the disability has ceased. Explanation I.-- This section applies to a discharge from every kind of liability, including a liability in respect of any immovable property. Explanation II.-- For the purposes of this section, the manager of a Hindu undivided family governed by the Mitakshara law shall be deemed to be capable of giving a discharge without the concurrence of the other members of the family only if he is in management of the joint family property. 17. Learned senior counsel for defendants No.1, 2 and 5-applicants submitted that a suit for injunction against the Karta i.e. defendant No.1 is barred by provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and no injunction could ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rohit Chauhan Vs. Surinder Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 419 wherein it has been held as under:- "11. ....It is not static. We are further of the opinion that so long, on partition an ancestral property remains in the hand of a single person, it has to be treated as a separate property and such a person shall be entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property treating it to be his separate property but if a son is subsequently born, the alienation made before the birth cannot be questioned. But, the moment a son is born, the property becomes a coparcenary property and the son would acquire interest in that and become a coparcener." (emphasis supplied) 23. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the aforesaid judgment in Rohit Chauhan Vs. Surinder Singh & Ors.(supra) had been reiterated subsequently in Danamma alias Suman Surpur & Anr. Vs. Amar & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 343 and Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna Prasad & Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 646. 24. Mr. Ganju stated that after the great grandfather of the plaintiffs i.e. Mr. R.P. Gulati came from Pakistan in 1947, he got compensation from the Settlement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he father and the son had worked together and created income and acquired properties with the help of their joint labour and effort--the said income and properties would be Hindu Joint Family properties unless proved to the contrary by the cogent evidence. He stated that the fact that defendants No.1, 2 and 4 had been working together in the family businesses since attaining majority and had been taking active part in the business of K.S. Gulati and Sons Hindu Joint Family since 1990 had been admitted by the defendants in C.P. No.06/1993. The relevant portion of the said reply affidavit by defendant No.1 relied upon by the learned senior counsel for plaintiffs is reproduced hereinbelow:- "H. ....Naturally, the wives were only tax fronts and actual business was conducted by the husbands. The answering respondent looked after the technical side whereas the management of the various units was handled by his two brothers. Although the division of the shares of the Company amongst the three families was disproportionate, it was clearly understood that all the three had equal stakes therein like in the entire family business." 29. He contended that in view of the said fact, e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies...." 30. Mr. Ganju submitted that the fact whether the thirteen properties claimed to be Hindu Joint Family properties were available for partition or not, was a question of fact which could be determined only after conducting a trial and not in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following judgments:- A. Kamala & Ors. Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 661 wherein it has been held as under:- "21. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given case, an application for rejection of the plaint may be filed on more than one ground specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a clear finding to that effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a court can be invoked at different....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the suit is barred under any law must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Further, for invoking Rule 11(d) of Order VII, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues on the merits of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the Court at that stage nor shall form the subject matter of an order under the said provision, in the aforesaid decision which also pertains to a partition suit, it was observed (AIR, page No. 3179):-- "whether any property is available for partition is itself a question of fact." 22. In the case of Kamala (supra), a suit was filed claiming partition in the properties. After the passing of the preliminary decree, no property was available for partition. The properties were possessed by the co-sharers independenty in accordance with the respective shares held by the co-sharers. Yet, the Supreme Court observed that what would be the effect of a partition suit which had not been taken to its logical conclusion by getting the properties partitioned by metes and bounds is a question which cannot be gone into in a proceeding under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code. Whether any property i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....randfather (defendant No.1) and the father (defendant No.4) of the plaintiffs had worked together and created income and acquired properties with the help of their joint labour and effort. 36. Learned senior counsel for defendants No.1, 2 and 5 lastly contended that though the plaintiffs were aware of the reply to the company petition being Co.Pet.6/1993 prior to the institution of the suit, yet there was no averment in the plaint with regard to the Company Law Board proceeding. Consequently, he submitted that the said allegation cannot be examined by the Court while dealing with an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application. COURT'S REASONING THE APPROACH TO BE ADOPTED BY THE COURTS WHILE DEALING WITH AN ORDER 7 RULE 11 CPC APPLICATION 37. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC lays down six grounds on which a plaint can be rejected. Though it is settled law that while deciding such an application what has to be seen are the averments made in the plaint, yet the sine qua non is that pleadings must contain all requisite factual ingredients of a cause of action. This Court is of the view that it is the bounden duty and obligation of every court, while deciding an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of tenable or untenable reasons, the seller may be in breach of the contract but that by itself does not permit a plaintiff to use the word "fraud" in the plaint and get over any objections that may be raised by way of filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. As pointed out by Krishna Iyer, J. in T. Arivandandam case [(1977) 4 SCC 467], the ritual of repeating a word or creation of an illusion in the plaint can certainly be unravelled and exposed by the Court while dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a). Inasmuch as the mere allegation of drawal of monies without movement of goods does not amount to a cause of action based on "fraud", the Bank cannot take shelter under the words "fraud" or "misrepresentation" used in the plaint." (emphasis supplied) 39. Even, in Kamala & Ors. Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors. (supra) as well as Ms. Ilaria Kapur Vs. Sh. Rakesh Kapur & Ors. (supra) it has been held that a plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC if the averments made in the plaint on their face disclose no cause of action and/or if the same disclose a cause of action, the same is barred by any law. In the judgments cited by learned senior counsel for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HUF properties inasmuch as it is necessary for existence of an HUF and its properties that it must be specifically, stated that as to whether the HUF came into existence before 1956 or after 1956 and if so how and in what manner giving all requisite factual details. It is only in such circumstances where specific facts are mentioned to clearly plead a cause of action of existence of an HUF and its properties, can a suit then be filed and maintained by a person claiming to be a coparcener for partition of the HUF properties." (emphasis supplied) 41. A Division Bench of this Court in Sagar Gambhir Vs. Sukhdev Singh Gambhir and Ors., 241 (2017) DLT 98 has endorsed the said view. The relevant portion of the Division Bench's judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "5. The defendants filed IA No. 1325/2012 invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure pleading that the averments in the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. 6. Vide impugned order dated May 06, 2016, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (1987) 1 SCC 204Yudhihster v. Ashok Kumar, and two decisions of this Court reported as 225 (2015) DLT 211 Sunny (Minor) v. Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax return of the defendant No.1. The same shows that the business of M/s. Gian Singh Sukhdev Singh was the sole proprietary business of defendant No. 1 and the source of funds to acquire the property in Rajinder Nagar was from the income generated from the firm. This document being filed by the appellant could be looked into by the learned Single Judge and the only error in the impugned order would be one of narrative of fact wherein said document has been referred to as relied upon by the defendants. It is a case where the appellant as well as the defendants relied upon the documents." (emphasis supplied) THERE EXISTS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A COPARCENARY PROPERTY AND A HINDU JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY. 42. A Mitakshara coparcenary is a body of individuals having been created by law, unlike a joint family which can be constituted by an agreement of parties. The Supreme Court in Hardeo Rai Vs. Sakuntala Devi and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 46 has held as under:- "19. We may at the outset notice the characteristics of a Mitakshara coparcenary from the decision of this Court whereupon Mr Rai has placed strong reliance being SBI v. Ghamandi Ram [(1969) 2 SCC 33 : AIR 1969 SC 1330]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1976) 2 SCC 429 has held as under:- "37.......In a joint Hindu family business, no member of the family can say that he is the owner of one-half, one-third or one- fourth. The essence of joint Hindu family property is unity of ownership and community of interest, and the shares of the members are not defined. Similarly, the pattern of the accounts of a joint Hindu family business maintained by the karta is different from those of a partnership. In the case of the former the shares of the individual members in the profits and losses are not worked out, while they have to be worked out in the case of partnership accounts." (emphasis supplied) 45. Consequently, a partnership property cannot be a Hindu Joint Family Property. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT A BUSINESS STANDING IN THE NAME OF ANY MEMBER OF THE JOINT FAMILY IS A JOINT FAMILY BUSINESS. 46. It is also settled law that there is no presumption that a business standing in the name of any member of the joint family is a joint family business. The Supreme Court in P.S.Sairam & Anr. Vs. P.S.Rama Rao Pissey & Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 320 has held as under:- "7. Crucial question in the present appeal is as to whet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is joint family property has to prove it. 49. Mulla in his Treatise Hindu Law states as under:- "Para 231- Mulla's Hindu Law - 21st Edition 1) Presumption that a joint family continues joint - Generally speaking, 'the normal state of every Hindu family is joint. Presumably every such family is joint in food, worship and estate.' In the absence of proof of division, such is the legal presumption. 2) No presumption that a joint family possesses joint property - There is no presumption that a family, because it is joint, possesses joint property or any property. When in a suit for partition, a party claims that any particular item of the property is joint family property, or when in a suit for a mortgage, a party contends that the property mortgaged is joint family property, the burden of proving it rests on the party asserting it." (emphasis supplied) 50. In Makhan Singh (Dead) By LRs. Vs. Kulwant Singh, (2007) 10 SCC 602, the Apex Court has held as under:- "7. ......In this connection the judgment in D.S. Lakshmaiah case becomes relevant. It had been observed that a property could not be presumed to be a joint Hindu f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SUFFICIENT NUCLEUS/INCOME OF HINDU JOINT FAMILY IS SHOWN AND PROPERTY HAD BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE SAID NUCLEUS, THEN EVEN IF OWNERSHIP STANDS IN THE NAME OF ONE OF ITS MEMBERS, IT CAN BE PRESUMED TO BE HINDU JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY 52. However, if sufficient nucleus/income of Hindu Joint Family is shown and property had been purchased from the said nucleus, then even if ownership stands in the name of one of its members, it can be presumed that property is owned by the Hindu Joint Family. Even in the judgment of Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade (supra) cited by the plaintiffs, there were Hindu Joint Family properties and the business was started from the Hindu Joint Family funds. The said judgment categorically holds that proof of nucleus/ sufficient income of a Hindu Joint Family as well as purchase from the said nucleus is a must. 53. In Ms. Ilaria Kapur Vs. Sh. Rakesh Kapur & Ors. (supra), it was also held that if nucleus whereof was generation of funds from Hindu joint family business for the purchase of properties, then it is immaterial whether the name of one of the family members appears on a document by which the said property was purchased by the joint family. LAND GRA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t as joint family property." (emphasis supplied) 57. Consequently, a bare perusal of the above commentaries clearly shows that a Grant under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 is the 'self-acquired property' of the donee. IN THE PRESENT PLAINT, THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY IDENTIFIABLE PROPERTY EVER OWNED OR BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE GRANDFATHER OF THE PLAINTIFFS' i.e. R.P. GULATI. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ESSENTIAL AVERMENT WITH REGARD TO NUCLEUS, i.e., SINE QUA NON FOR HINDU JOINT FAMILY, IS LACKING IN THE PLAINT 58. In the present plaint, there is no mention of any identifiable property ever owned by the great grandfather of the plaintiffs' i.e. R.P. Gulati. The income tax assessment order relied upon by learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs does not show that the alleged R.P. Gulati HUF existed or owned any asset. The assessment order only mentions about a shoe business carried out by Mr. R.P. Gulati - but there is no averment in the plaint to the said effect. There is also no averment that any specific property was owned by Mr. R.P. Gulati or that defendant No.1 succeeded to any specific estate/business of his father. 59. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others Vs. Chander Sen and Others (supra), Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar (supra) and Bhanwar Singh v. Puran and Others (supra) - which had not been noticed in Rohit Chauhan's case - held that when succession takes place under Section 8 of the Act, 1956, the entire joint family property loses its nature and the heirs succeed the deceased's interests as tenants in common in accordance with Section 19 of the Act, 1956. The Supreme Court emphasised that a conjoint reading of Sections 4, 8 and 19 shows that if succession takes place in accordance with Section 8, the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it as they then hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants as provided under Section 19 of the Act, 1956. The Supreme Court held that when the appellant's grandfather died in 1973 in the said case, his share in the joint family property was divided between his sons as individual shares and it no longer remained joint family property. According to the Apex Court, the appellant's father and uncles did not own any family property jointly that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the thirteen properties. NOT ONLY THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF C-117, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI ARE ADMITTEDLY IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT NO.1'S WIFE, NAMELY, DEFENDANT NO.5, BUT THE CONVEYANCE DEED EXECUTED BY THE DDA IS ALSO IN HER FAVOUR EXCLUSIVELY. THE PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTION THAT THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF DEFENDANT NO.1 WAS USED AS BENAMI WITH REGARD TO C-117, EAST OF KAILASH IS UNTENABLE IN LAW INASMUCH AS THE GRANDMOTHER OF THE PLAINTIFFS, I.E. DEFENDANT NO. 5, WAS ADMITTEDLY NOT A COPARCENER IN THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY. SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY DEFENDANT NO.5, WHO IS AN INDEPENDENT INCOME TAX ASSESSEE HAVING RENTAL AND BUSINESS INCOME. CONSEQUENTLY, THE EXCEPTION CONTAINED IN SECTION 4(3) OF THE ACT, 1988, AS IT THEN STOOD, IS NOT ATTRACTED TO THE PRESENT CASE. 69. As far as C-117, East of Kailash, New Delhi is concerned, this Court finds that not only the Agreement to Sell and Receipt of payment are in favour of the defendant No. 1's wife, namely, defendant No. 5 but the Conveyance Deed executed by the DDA is also in her favour exclusively. In fact, the said property was purchased by defendant No.5, who is an independent I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by a Hindu female as a limited owner? In our opinion, it is difficult to answer this question in favour of the appellants. The rule of blending postulates that a coparcener who is interested in the coparcenary property and who owns separate property of his own may by deliberate and intentional conduct treat his separate property as forming part of the coparcenary property. If it appears that property which is separately acquired has been deliberately and voluntarily thrown by the owner into the joint stock with the clear intention of abandoning his claim on the said property and with the object of assimilating it to the joint family property, then the said property becomes a part of the joint family estate; in other words, the separate property of a coparcener loses its separate character by reason of the owner's conduct and get thrown into the common stock of which it becomes a part. This doctrine, therefore, inevitably postulates that the owner of the separate property is a coparcener who has an interest in the coparcenary property and desires to blend his separate property with the coparcenary property. There can be no doubt that the conduct on which a plea of blending is b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T OF LIMITED OWNERSHIP IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY OWNED BY HINDU FEMALE ALL TOGETHER. 76. In fact, the Supreme Court in Jagannathan Pillai Vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai & Ors. 1987 (2) SCC 572 has held that by enacting Section 14 of the Act, 1956, the legislature has done away with the concept of limited ownership in respect of property owned by Hindu female all together. To obviate hair-splitting, the legislature has made it abundantly clear that whatever be the property possessed by a Hindu female, it will be of absolute ownership and not of limited ownership notwithstanding the position obtaining under the traditional Hindu law. 77. In Vankamamidi Venkata Subba Rao Vs. Chatlapalli Setharamaratna Ranganayakamma, 1997 (5) SCC 460, the Apex Court held that it is a well settled legal position that if the right of a Hindu woman under any instrument is in recognition of pre-existing right, the limited right though prescribed under the instrument, gets enlarged into an absolute right by operation of Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956. 78. In Gangamma & Ors. Vs. G. Nagarathnamma & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 756, the Supreme Court has held as under:- "4. The suit properties consist of both....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll ownership on Hindu female and made it very clear that rights conferred under Section 14(1) to a Hindu female are not restricted or limited by any rule of Hindu Law. In the opinion of the Court in Punithavalli [(1970) 1 SCC 570 : AIR 1970 SC 1730] the said section makes a clear departure from all texts of Hindu laws and rules and those texts and rules cannot be used for circumventing the plain meaning of Section 14(1) of the said Act. (emphasis supplied) SINCE ADMITTEDLY THERE HAVE BEEN FOUR PARTITIONS, THE SHARE OF THE COPARCENERS MUST BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DETERMINED AND THE PROPERTIES CEASED TO BE COPARCENARY PROPERTIES 79. The essence of coparcenary under Mitakshara Law is unity of ownership and once there is a partition, unity of coparcenary is destroyed/ dissolved. The Supreme Court in Hardeo Rai (supra) has held as under:- "22. For the purpose of assigning one's interest in the property, it was not necessary that partition by metes and bounds amongst the coparceners must take place. When an intention is expressed to partition the coparcenary property, the share of each of the coparceners becomes clear and ascertainable. Once the share of a coparcener....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y other member or members can carry on business or acquire property, subject to the limitations laid down by the said law, for or on behalf of the family. Such business or property would be the business or property of the family. The identity of the members of the family is not completely lost in the family. One or more members of that family can start a business or acquire property without the aid of the joint family property, but such business or acquisition would be his or their acquisition. The business so started or property so acquired can be thrown into the common stock or blended with the joint family property in which case the said property becomes the estate of the joint family. But he or they need not do so, in which case the said property would be his or their self- acquisition, and succession to such property would be governed not by the law of joint family but only by the law of inheritance. In such a case, if a property was jointly acquired by them, it would not be governed by the law of joint family; for Hindu law does not recognize some of the members of a joint family belonging to different branches, or even to a single branch, as a corporate unit. Therefore, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oja Vs. Santhil Kumar and Others, (2011) 11 SCC 483; C.N. Ramappa Gowda Vs. C.C. Chandregowda (Dead) by LRs. and Another, (2012) 5 SCC 265; Molar and Ors. Vs. Smt. Santo and Ors., PLR (1968) 70 P&H 510; Gurjant Singh Major and Others Vs. Surjit Singh and Others, PLR (2004) 138 P&H 469; and Matu Ram (Deceased) thru Lrs Vs. Kartar Singh and other, PLR (2004) 137 P&H 569.] 85. Further, a limited company cannot be a Hindu Joint Family business but can be a quasi partnership in rare and special circumstances, i.e., equality in shareholding, restriction on transfer of shareholding, conversion of prior partnership, bank accounts being operated by all, agreement for equal participation in management or an understanding that a company would be managed on partnership principles [See: Sangramsinh P.Gaekwad & Ors. Vs. Shantadevi P.Gaekwad (Dead) Through LRs & Ors., (2005) 11 SCC 314 and Ebrahimi Vs. Westbourne Galleries Ltd. & Ors.,(1972) 2 ALL ER 492]. If partners happen to be some or the other members of a family or where most of them are females, it will not be a Hindu Joint Family business. Also if averments in the reply to Co.Pet.6/1993 are believed to be true and correct, then the ave....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the Income Tax returns is not always decisive of the real status of the individual...." C. Madan Lal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, [1969] 74 ITR 84(Raj) where it has been held as under:- "20. ....In our opinion, in the absence of any other circumstances, the filing of returns and getting his property taxed on the basis of joint family property were not sufficient to show an intention of abandonment of his claim on the part of Sukhdoo. It has been observed in Govind Narain Mathur v. Mohini Devi ILR [1960] Raj 1219 that a statement in connection with the assessment of Income Tax that certain property was joint family property may be made for the purpose of getting some advantage under the law relating to Income Tax and that it could not be evidence of any unequivocal intention on the part of the assesses to waive his interest in the self acquired property...." (emphasis supplied) BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE IS ENTIRELY IN FAVOUR OF THE 88. This Court is of the view that the balance of convenience is entirely in favour of the defendant nos. 1 and 5 as they have been out of possession of their own house (C-117, East of Kailash, New Delhi) since 2010. It is pertinent t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hip firms or Public or Private Limited Companies cannot be said to belong to a coparcenary. 94. Not only the agreement to sell and receipt of payment of C-117, East of Kailash, New Delhi are admittedly in favour of the defendant no.1's wife, namely, defendant no.5, but the conveyance deed executed by the DDA is also in her favour exclusively. The plaintiffs' contention that the name of the wife of defendant no.1 was used as benami with regard to C-117, East of Kailash is untenable in law inasmuch as the grandmother of the plaintiffs, i.e., defendant no. 5, was admittedly not a coparcener in the Hindu undivided family. The said property was purchased by defendant no.5, who is an independent income tax assessee having rental and business income. 95. In any event, after enactment of section 14 of the Act, 1956, the Legislature has done away with the concept of limited ownership in respect of property owned by Hindu female all together. Consequently, the exception contained in Section 4(3) of the Act, 1988, as it then stood, is not attracted to the present case. 96. It is further settled law that the Hindu law does not recognise some of the members of a joint family be....