Delhi High Court
Manoj Arora vs Mamta Arora on 7 August, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.522/2017 and C.M. No.19306/2017(stay)
% 7th August, 2018
MANOJ ARORA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. M. Sufian Siddiqui,
Advocate with Mr. Rakesh
Bhugra, Advocate with
appellant in person.
versus
MAMTA ARORA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana,
Advocate with Ms. Akshita
Chhatwal, Advocate and Mr.
Anirudh Ahuja, Advocate with
respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit
impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 19.12.2016 by which
trial court has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by
applying provisions of Sections 4 read with repealed Section 3(2) of
the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
2. The subject suit was filed by the
appellant/plaintiff/husband pleading that the two properties with
respect to which reliefs of declaration and injunction were claimed in
the suit, namely B-1/58, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi-15 and bearing
no. B-206, C-DOT, CGHS Apartments, Sector-56, Gurgaon, were
purchased by the appellant/plaintiff/husband from his own sources as
stated in the plaint including paras 9 and 11 of the plaint. Paras 9 and
11 of the plaint read as under:-
"9. That the earnest money for the purchase of the property was
bearing no. B-1/58, New Moti Nagar, Delhi of Rs.25,000/-(Rs Twenty
Five thousand only) has been paid by the Plaintiff vide cheque
no.511459 dated 03.02.2001 for the amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.
Twenty thousand only) and Rs.5,000/-(Rs Five thousand only) in cash.
That the balance amount of Rs Eight lacs has been paid by the
Plaintiff from the sources which are as follows:
Fixed deposit matures on 19.05.2001 -Rs.69,085
Sale of shares of Reliance Industries -Rs.63,000
Sold Janta Flat in Tagore Garden
(Property was in the name of Plaintiff) -Rs.1,85,000
Provident fund 28.05.2001 -Rs.79,600
Personal loan secured from CitiBank -Rs 80,000
Personal loan taken from Brother-
In-law and returned to Sister vide cheque -Rs.60,000
Rest of the amount was arranged by taking loan from friends.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
11. That thereafter the Plaintiff purchased another property bearing
no. B-206, C-DOT, CGHS Apartments, Sector-56 Gurgaon for the
amount of Rs.47,00,000/- (Rs Fourty Seven Lacs only). That the
above said property has been planned to be purchased by the parties in
the joint name of the Plaintiff as well as Defendant from the joint
owners Smt. Sangeeta Srivastava and Sh. Rajmohan Srivastava.
However due to change in the policies of the society, Plaintiff had to
purchase the aforementioned property also in the name of the
Defendant. Details of the payment and the source of income is
mentioned herein below:
From A/C of Plaintiff vide
cheque bearing no.160517 -Rs.5,00,000/-
cheque bearing no.160518 -Rs.5,00,000/-
Vide Cheque bearing no.914362/
363/364 in the name -Rs.2,60,000/-
of Vikrant Madaan as per
request of vendee.
Loan Sanctioned from ICICI Bank -Rs.30,99,000/-
Monthly installments for the amount of Rs.34,123 earlier and for the
amount of Rs.30,457/- has regularly been debited from the savings
account of Plaintiff since August 2007. That further an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- has also been paid to the Bank towards prepayment of
the loan."
3. Accordingly in the suit, reliefs of declaration and
injunction were claimed that it was the appellant/plaintiff/husband
who was the owner of the properties and not the
respondent/defendant/wife.
4. Unfortunately, the trial court has committed a grave and
fundamental error in rejecting the suit plaint under Order VII Rule 11
CPC by relying upon the provision of Section 4 and repealed
provision of Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition)
Act. When the impugned judgment was passed on 19.12.2016, what
was, and is now applicable is the Prohibition of Benami Property
Transactions Act, 1988 which became applicable w.e.f 1.11.2016. As
per Section 2(9) of the Amended Act what is a Benami Transaction is
stated/specified, and also those transactions which are not benami are
are also stated/specified. As per the suit plaint/averments, in the
present case the existence of the properties in the name of the
respondent/defendant/wife will fall as an Exception to the prohibited
benami transaction in view of Section 2(9)(A)(b) Exception (iii)
inasmuch as it is legally permissible for a person to purchase an
immovable property in the name of his spouse from his known
sources, and in which position, the property purchased will not be a
benami property but the property will be of the de jure
owner/plaintiff/husband and not of the de facto owner (in whose name
title deeds exist), being the respondent/defendant/wife in the present
case.
5. By the impugned judgment since the suit has been held to
be barred at the threshold by applying Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and the
plaint has been rejected by applying the repealed provision of Section
3(2) of the Act which was no longer applicable, and by ignoring the
provision of Section 2(9)(A)(b) Exception (iii) which was applicable,
the impugned judgment is hence illegal and is set aside. Whether or
not the appellant/plaintiff/husband will or will not have the benefit of
Section 2(9)(A)(b) Exception (iii) is a matter of fact which requires
trial and such a suit cannot be rejected at the threshold by applying
Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
6. In view of the aforesaid position, this appeal is allowed.
Impugned Judgment dated 19.12.2016 is set aside. Suit would be tried
and disposed of by the trial court in accordance with law after
trial/evidence.
7. Parties to appear before the District & Sessions Judge,
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 29th August, 2018 and the District
& Sessions Judge will mark the suit for disposal to a competent court
in accordance with law.
8. Appeal is disposed of in terms of aforesaid observations.
AUGUST 07, 2018 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
