TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the business of lottery, he repaid a sum of 45,88,461/- (Rupees forty five lakhs, eighty eight thousand, four hundred and sixty one) only, to the Bank from his own resources, but an amount of Rs. 64,71,000/- (Rupees sixty four lakhs and seventy one thousand) only, was not disbursed by the lender Bank leading to acute financial crisis for the Appellant. Consequently, both he and the Respondent No.1, his wife, decided to dispose of the suit premises to the Respondent No.2 at a consideration value of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three crores) only, vide an Agreement dated 18-04-2013. That, both Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 colluded and coerced him into signing a "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) to sell the property, assuring him that the excess of the sale proceeds after payment of loan would be made over to him. A total amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and ten lakhs) only, was paid by the Respondent No.2, on his behalf, to liquidate the loan account as a one time settlement. He averred that the Agreement for Sale is void since properties of a tribal to which community he belongs, cannot be transferred to Respondent No.2, a non-tribal. In order to prevent registra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Appellant nor promised to pay him the remnants of the sale amount after deduction of loan amount. That, claim of execution of an NOC was fictitious, hence the Appellant's Suit be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Learned Trial Court settled the following issues for determination; (a) Whether the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit property having bought the same for his earnings? (b) Whether the Defendant No.1 is the bona fide and absolute owner of the suit property having purchased the same from her Stridhan? (c) Whether the Defendant No.1 had the right to sell the suit property to Defendant No.2? (d) Whether the Sale Deed dated 21-04-2014 and other related documents with respect to transaction of the suit property are illegal, void, inoperative and against the law of the land? (e) Whether the Defendant No.2 is the bona fide purchaser of the suit property having paid consideration amount for the same and whether he is not prevented from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes laws of Sikkim? (f) Whether the Plaintiff has the sole authority to deal with the property in the capacity of Karta of the family? (g) Whether the Plaintiff is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant was the recipient of a large amount of money which he invested in the suit property. That, the Respondent No.1 was a housewife sans income, besides she hailed from a humble family lacking the wherewithal to purchase such property. Her parents lacked the finances to give her any Stridhan and her claim of purchase of properties from her Stridhan is concocted. That, the Appellant had purchased the property by way of benami transaction in the name of Respondent No.1 and was thereby the rightful owner. In the absence of appreciation of the documents of income relied on by the Appellant to establish that he had purchased the suit property, the impugned Judgment deserves to be set aside. 9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 while reiterating the averments made in her Written Statement, submitted that Exhibit P8 is dated 04-08-1988, whereas the Respondent No.1 had already purchased the landed properties in February, 1988 and July, 1988. That, it is an admitted fact that the Respondent No.1 was a partner in M/s. Bindhya Agency, the lottery business, being run by the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 jointly and she therefore earned 50% of the income therein. That, the Suit of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uted between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 for purchase of the suit properties for a consideration value of Rs. 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. Exhibit 8 relied on by the Appellant, is proof of refund of Prize Money amounting to Rs. 13,25,600/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs twenty five thousand and six hundred) only, dated 04-08-1988. How this document assumes importance or buttresses the case of the Appellant as the alleged purchaser of the suit properties cannot be comprehended. 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 o....