LexPADMINI CHANDRASEKHARAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. versus R. RAJAGOPAL REDDY (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- -- PAD MINI CHANDRASEKHARAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. v. R. RAJAGOPAL REDDY (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. FEBRUARY 19, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.J Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988: S.4-House site allotted by the Housing Society-At a pmtition the site fell to the share of another branch of the joint family17iat branch paid the A B c hire purchase instalments to the Housing Society-Pa1tition not questioned as vitiated by fraud or mis-representation-There/ ore it cannot be chal- lenged-Appellant and her husband paying rent to that branch and asking for D willingness to transfer the property in their name-Hence they are estopped from denying the title of the respondent-Hence decree of eviction binds the appellant-Plea of benami collusive between appellant and the 01igi,nal allot- tee to defraud respondents of the prope1ty they got at the partition-Evidence Act-S.116. Mithilesh Kumari & Anr. v. Prem Be/tali Khare, AIR (1989) SC 1247, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4254 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.95 of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No. 27 of 1980. G. Subramaniam, S. Sivasubramaniam, N.J. Varadachary, A. Ran- E F ganadhan and A.V. Rangam for the Appellants. G Mohan parasaran for V. Balachandran for the Respondents .. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. H 829 830 SU:PREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R. A· We have heard learned counsel on both sides. B This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree dated August 16, 1995 of the Division Bench of Madras High Court made in OSA No. 27 of 1980. The appellant, (since deceased) represented by the executors of her will in C.S. 110 of 1971, laid the suit for declaration that she was the sole and exclusive owner and in possession, in her own right, of the house and ground bearing Door No. 40, Fourth Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Madras-20 as owner thereof and for permanent injunction restraining R. C Rajagopala Reddy, the first defendant in the suit, or his agents or servants, from interfering with her possession and enjoyment thereof. Initially, the suit was decreed but on appeal, following the judgment of this Court in Mithilesh Kumari & Anr. v. Prem Beha1i Khare, AIR (1989) SC 1247 holding that Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 operates retrospectively, the High Court held that the second defendant, Venugopal D Reddy was a benamidar and the joint family had no manner of right whatsoever over the suit property. The earlier partition deed was not valid. On appeal to this Court, the view taken in Mithilesh Kumari's case was overruled by a three-Judge Bench in this very case and the matter was remitted to the High Court for a decision afresh. The Division Bench after E considering the evidence held that Venugopal Reddy was allotted the plot by Madras Co~operative Housing Construction Society (Housing Society): at a partition in 1955, the suit property was allotted to Srinivasalu Reddy, elder brother of Rajagopal Reddy belonging to one branch Petta family; Venugopal Reddy was benamidar for joint family. Accordingly, the High F Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial Judge and dismissed the suit. Thus this appeal by special leave. . ..... When the matter had come up before us for admisi;ion, the question raised by Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel was that the Division Bench had not considered the effect of the benami transaction in proper G perspective and, therefore, the decision is vitiated by grave error of law. Accordingly, notice was taken by the respondents and they have filed their counter and have placed on record the entire evidence .. The only question is whether Venugopal Reddy, the second defen- dant is a benamidar of the property belongs to Rajagopal Reddy, the first H defendant. It is not in dispute that on an application _made by Venugopal P ADMINI CHANDRASEKHARAN v. R. RAJAGOP AL REDDY 831 Reddy, is second defendant on July 9, 1947 to the Housing Society the site A was allotted in his name. Three families were living as composite Hindu Joint Family who dealt with extensive properties situated in various places including Thada, Venadu etc. in Andhra Pradesh and in the City of Madras. Three families are for short stated as Petta, V akatti and Es- waravakka families. Rajagopal Reddy equally applied fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.