AMAR N. GUGNANI Vs. NARESH KUMAR GUGNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Sec. 10 of the Delhi High Court Rules, assailing the Judgment and Decree dtd. 30/7/2015, passed by learned Single Judge, (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"), whereby the Suit of the Appellant was dismissed being barred by the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Benami Act").

(2.) Briefly stated facts are that the Appellant, presently a resident of United States of America (USA), instituted a Civil Suit being CS (OS) No. 478 of 2004 seeking, inter alia, reliefs of declaration, eviction, recovery of damages, rendition of accounts and permanent and mandatory injunctions in respect of property bearing No. 33, Uday Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property").

(3.) It is the case of the Appellant that he left India in the year 1962 for higher studies and thereafter pursued his education and career in the USA. During the course of his stay abroad, he remitted substantial funds to India and entrusted the same to his father, late Shri Jai Gopal Gugnani, for being held and utilized for the benefit of the Appellant. Subsequent thereto, on the suggestion of his father, the Appellant decided to purchase a plot of land in New Delhi for construction of a residential house. Acting on this advice, and as the Appellant was based abroad and unable to manage his affairs in India, it was agreed that the plot would be acquired in the name of his father, who would hold the same for and on behalf of the Appellant. Pursuant thereto, a perpetual lease deed dtd. 9/5/1973 in respect of the suit property measuring approximately 425.25 sq. mts., was executed by the Delhi Development Authority in favour of the Appellant's father and was registered on 21/8/1974.The Appellant categorically pleaded in his plaint that the entire consideration for purchase of the plot, as also the funds for construction raised thereon, were provided by him. After completion of construction, the property was let out and was managed by the Appellant's father, for and on behalf of the Appellant.