SANTOSH MALIK Vs. MAHARAJA KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of an application filed by Defendant No. 1 under Order VII Rules 11 A & D of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein it has been prayed that the plaint calls for rejection. The suit has been filed for partition and possession of B-6, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110 014. It is asserted by the Plaintiff that she was the major contributory for the initial deposit of Rs. 2500.00 and other investments made in the suit property in 1960. The parties are siblings, being the children of late Dr. Ram Krishan. It is claimed in the plaint that each of the parties has 1/3rd share in the suit property, which undoubtedly stands in the name of the Applicant/Defendant No. 1. Although some documents have been filed by the parties I would, at this stage, only advert to Annexures (A) and (B) of the application which are photocopies of the Deed of Conveyance of Building Constituted on Lease-Hold Sites Sold Otherwise Than By Public Auction and the Lease Deed (Applicable to Government-owned Sites in the Delhi State revised terms). The first is dated 31.7.1964 and the second is dated 28.1.1972. Both are in the name of Shri Maharaj Krishan, Defendant No. 1. It is, therefore, undisputable that the nominal/titular owner of the suit property is the Applicant/Defendant No. 1.

(2.) Although it is in controversy in the suit as to whether the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 have made contributions towards the suit property and/or that the Applicant has consecutively and exclusively paid the taxes pertaining thereto, these facts need not detain attention for the reasons that at this stage, only the plaint should alone be looked into, along with admitted documents.

(3.) The attack on the maintainability of the plaint is predicated on the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act).