SUNITA RAJPUT Vs. SUSHEELA DEVI SAINI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal is filed under section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 8.8.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for partition filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to the property D-16, Green Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property').

(2.) The facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff pleaded that the suit property was no doubt purchased by the sale deed dated 7.12.1959 in the name of defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the suit, but actually this property was owned by the father Sh. Waryam Singh because funds for the purchase of this property were given by the father Sh. Waryam Singh. It was also pleaded that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 were minors at the time when the sale deed dated 7.12.1959 was executed in their favour and that they had no source of finance for purchase of the suit property. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 filed a written statement and pleaded that they were the exclusive owners of the suit property and the father was not the owner of the suit property. It was pleaded by defendant nos. 1 to 3 that they were owners in terms of the sale deed dated 7.12.1959. It was also pleaded that the case of the appellant/plaintiff that since father had paid the moneys and therefore defendant nos. 1 to 3 would not be the owners of the suit property would be barred by Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Benami Act').

(3.) I may note that the original defendant no. 1 in the suit Sh. Kushal Pal Singh expired during the pendency of the suit and he was represented by his legal heirs who are now respondent nos. 1 to 4 in this appeal. Reference to respondent nos. 1 to 4, therefore, wherever the context so requires, will be reference to defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 in the suit was Sh. Vijay Kumar Saini and who is sued as respondent no. 5 in the present appeal. Defendant no. 3 in the suit was Sh. Vinay Kumar Saini who expired during the pendency of the suit and was thereafter represented by his legal heirs and who are respondent nos. 6 to 8 in the present appeal. Reference to respondent nos. 6 to 8 would therefore include reference to defendant no. 3 or these respondents along with respondent nos. 1 to 4 will also be included in the general expression of defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the suit who filed a common written statement.