IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P. (C) 2761/2020
Petitioner
Sandeep Gulati
Respondent
Divisional commissioner, office of the Secretary-cum-divisional Commissioner, Department of revenue, Govt. Of NCT of Delhi and ors
Date of Judgement
13 March 2020
Bench
Justice Navin Chawla
Facts of the Case:
The suit property does not belong exclusively to the respondent nos.2 and 3 but is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property, wherein the petitioner also has a share being a co-parcenar. 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 WP(C) 2761/2020 & 2795/2020 Page 3 said property was purchased by defendant No.5, who is an independent Income Tax Assesse admittedly having rental and business income. On the date of purchase, father of the plaintiffs (defendant No.4) was nine years old.
The contention of the plaintiffs that the name of the wife of defendant No.1 was used as benami with regard to C-117, East of Kailash, New Delhi by the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 for the benefit of the family and the coparcenary, as envisaged under the exception in Section 4(3) of the Act, 1988, is untenable in law inasmuch as the grandmother of the plaintiffs, i.e. defendant No. 5 being a female could not be a coparcener prior to 2005. In fact, it has been admitted in the plaint that defendant No.5 was not a coparcener in the Hindu Joint family and had no share in it on the date of purchase of the said property. (Para 2(xv) of the plaint).
Issues:
- Whether the doctrine of blending can be invoked with regard to property bearing C-117, East of Kailash, New Delhi?
- Whether the exception contained in Section 4(3) of the Act, 1988 is attracted to the present case?
Arguments Advanced:
The name of the wife of defendant No.1 was used as benami with regard to C-117, East of Kailash, New Delhi by the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 for the benefit of the family and the coparcenary, as envisaged under the exception in Section 4(3) of the Act, 1988, is untenable in law inasmuch as the grandmother of the plaintiffs, i.e. defendant No. 5 being a female could not be a coparcener prior to 2005. In fact, it has been admitted in the plaint that defendant No.5 was not a coparcener in the Hindu Joint family and had no share in it on the date of purchase of the said property. (Para 2(xv) of the plaint).
Judgment:
A senior citizen is merely to show that his property needs protection and need not necessarily have to show that he/she needs maintenance or has been ill-treated by the son or other legal heir. In any case, nature of possession of the petitioner(s) being that of a licensee and there admittedly being a series of litigations between them and the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein, the order of eviction cannot be faulted. The learned counsels for the petitioner(s) has further asserted that the property in question could not have been purchased by the respondent no.2 as the respondent no.3 was in government service and for purchase of such property, prior permission of the government is required under CCS Rules, 1964. Also find no merit in the said submission. The property was purchased in the year 1978. In any case, it is not for the petitioners to challenge the title of the respondent no.2 on this ground. Therefore, find no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed. There shall no order as to cost.
Edited by Sree Ramya
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
