Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar Jain Through Lrs Tania Vaish vs Sudha Rani Thru Lrs & Ors. on 14 November, 2024
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ EX.F.A. 36/2024 and CM APPL. 63607/2024
Date of Decision: 14.11.2024
ANIL KUMAR JAIN
THROUGH LRs MS. TANIA VAISH
D/o LATE SHRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN
R/o H.NO. S/ 19, PANCHSHEEL ENCLAVE
NEW DELHI .....APPELLANT
(Through: Mr. Akash Kumar, Adv. )
Versus
MS. SUDHA RANI
THROUGH LRs
1. ANKIT
S/o LATE SHRI SANJEEV SHARMA
2. NIKHIL
S/o LATE SHRI SANJEEV SHARMA
3.AANYA
D/o LATE SHRI SANJEEV SHARMA
4. SHRI DEV KARAN
S/o SHRI GOVERDHAN DASS
(FATHER OF DECEASED LATE SHRI SANJEEV SHARMA)
5. SMT. RAJWATI
W/o SHRI DEV KARA.N
(MOTHER OF DECEASED LATE SHRI SANJEEV SHARMA)
ALL R/o 3444, QUATAB ROAD,
GALI LALU BISAR, CHOWK SINGHARA,
SADAR BAZAR, DELHI .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:20.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:05:51 KUMAR KAURAV
-2-
(Through: None.)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant Execution First Appeal has been preferred by the legal
representatives of the judgment debtor, challenging the impugned order
dated 29.07.2024, rendered in Execution Petition No. 153/2020
[previously Ex. No. 3/2008] by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal [MACT], Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
By the said order, the objections filed by the appellant under Section 47
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] were dismissed.
2. The facts of the instant case would indicate that the appellant
herein is the daughter of late Mr. Anil Kumar Jain and Mrs. Bala Jain.
Late Mr. Anil Kumar Jain was involved in an accident, where one of the
family members of the respondents herein succumbed to his injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal
below has fundamentally erred by dismissing the objections raised by the
appellant-judgment debtor. He submits that the property of the appellant
cannot be subject to the award, as there is no conclusive evidence that
the same was purchased with funds derived from the sale of assets
originally owned by the deceased judgment debtor, Mr. Anil Kumar Jain.
Learned counsel for the appellant asserts that material placed on record
clearly indicates that the property in question is inherited solely from
Mrs. Bala Jain, mother of the appellant and thus, falls beyond the estate
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
Signing Date:20.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:05:51 KUMAR KAURAV
of the deceased. He further argued that unless the respondent decree
holder unequivocally establishes that the property of the appellant was
acquired using the funds of the decreed judgment debtor, the Tribunal,
acting within the ambit of execution proceedings, lacks the jurisdiction
to attach or proceed against the same. To substantiate his contention,
learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Mangathai Ammal v. Rajeswari1 and another decision of the
Allahabad High Court in the case of Lal Behari Prasad Pandey v.
Bindesari Misra2.
4. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
5. It is gleaned from the record that on 17.05.2001, Mr.Sanjeev
Sharma succumbed to his injuries in a road accident. Subsequently, on
05.07.2007, an award came to be passed against Mr.Anil Kumar Jain
[since deceased through appellant being the legal heir]. Deceased
Mr.Anil Kumar Jain was the driver of the offending vehicle. The MACT
awarded a compensation of Rs. 14,80,400/-, along with interest at the
rate of 7% per annum, against both Mr. Anil Kumar Jain [deceased] and
the owner of the offending vehicle.
6. The primary objection raised by the appellant before the
Executing Court was that the property bearing No. G-234, Second Floor,
Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, was the self-acquired property of late Mrs. Bala
Jain, purchased solely from her own funds and resources. The appellant
further submitted that, pursuant to Section 50 of the CPC, the legal
representatives of a deceased Judgment Debtor can only be made liable
(2020) 17 SCC 498
1933 SCC OnLine All 300
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
Signing Date:20.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:05:51 KUMAR KAURAV
to the extent of the estate inherited by them from the deceased Judgment
Debtor. Consequently, it was argued that the aforementioned property,
being self-acquired by late Mrs. Bala Jain, could not be subjected to
attachment in the execution proceedings. The appellant also placed
reliance on the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 in support of this contention.
7. Upon examining the evidence presented in support of the
objection raised, the Executing Court found no merit in the objections
raised and also observed that the same was intended primarily to obstruct
the execution of the award passed by the MACT.
8. In paragraphs 36 to 38 of the impugned order, the Executing Court
made the following pertinent observations:-
" 36. Thus, from the date of passing of Award i.e. 05.07.2007 till
vacation of stay Order in Appeal on 18.05.2011, JD had already
rotated his money and properties to frustrate execution of the Award.
From the evidence led in the present case, it has been proved that Smt.
Bala Jain had no income or funds of her own to purchase the property
No. G-234 Second Floor. As already discussed above, the objector has
withheld the bank account statements of JD and Smt. Bala Jain. The
Court has no hesitation in holding that the property No. G-234 (Second
floor), Palam Vihar, Gurugram, Haryana was purchased in the name
of Smt. Bala Jain out of the funds of JD Anil Kumar Jain during his life
time.
37. I will now refer to the guidelines laid down in Jaydayal Poddar's
case to determine question whether a particular sale is Benami or not
which are as follows :-
"1. The source from which the purchase money came;
2. The nature and possession of the property, after purchase;
3. Motive, if any for giving the transaction a benami colour;
4 The position of the parties and the alleged benamidar;
5. Custody of the title deeds after the sale and;
6. The conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the
property after the sale. "
38. It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that these
indicia were not exhaustive and their efficacy varied accordingly to the
facts of each case. In the present case under consideration, the DH has
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
Signing Date:20.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:05:51 KUMAR KAURAV
been able to show through the evidence led by the Objector herself that
the purchase of property No. G-234, Second Floor in the name of Smt.
Bala Jain was a Benami transaction which was entered into with the
sole motive of frustrating the execution of Award dated 05.07.2007."
9. It is thus evident that the appellant failed to substantiate the claim
that the property in question was the self-acquired asset of late Mrs. Bala
Jain. On the contrary, the record indicates that neither the deceased
judgment debtor nor late Mrs. Bala Jain raised any objection to various
orders of the Tribunal concerning the said property. Furthermore, it has
been established that the judgment debtor had previously manoeuvred
his funds and assets with the apparent intent to obstruct the execution of
the award.
10. On the aspect that the acquisition of the suit property on the name
of the mother of the appellant to be a benami transaction, the learned
counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision in Mangathai Ammal
to argue that mere payment of part of the sale consideration is
insufficient to classify a transaction as benami. This decision, however,
does not aid the case of the appellant. The decision in Mangathai
Ammal emphasizes that the determinative factor in a transaction is the
intention of the individual contributing the purchase money, which must
be assessed based on the surrounding circumstances, the relationship
between parties, their motives, and their subsequent conduct. These
considerations are inherently factual, and the Tribunal has duly evaluated
these aspects, including the cheques and various other statements in
arriving at its findings.
11. Similarly, the decision in Lal Behari Prasad Pandey, rendered by
the Allahabad High Court, is based on facts and circumstances that are
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
Signing Date:20.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:05:51 KUMAR KAURAV
altogether distinct from the present case. The decision in the said case
involved the attachment of certain properties against the legal heirs of
the judgment debtor, all of whom belonged to a joint family, but the
properties in question were distinct from the estate of the joint family. In
the instant case, the facts differ, as the Tribunal has made specific
observations indicating that the transactions were in the nature of
benami, allegedly executed to evade liabilities under the decree.
Consequently, this decision does not support the appellant's position.
12. In light of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion
that no interference is warranted with the order passed by the MACT.
Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith
pending applications.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 14, 2024/MJ/SP
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
Signing Date:20.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:05:51 KUMAR KAURAV
