Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: RADHA GUPTA Vs. RAMESH GUPTA
04.09.2025
Present: 	Sh. Ravinder Malik, Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Nityanand, proxy counsel for Sh. Vinay Ahrotia,
counsel for the defendants.
At request on behalf of the plaintiff, her application u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC is
disposed off as not pressed.
The Counsel for the plaintiff states that he is not pressing for his reliefs
regarding permanent injunction & user charges, which may be deleted from the suit.
These two prayers are accordingly deleted. The suit remains only for relief of possession
now.
The counsel for the plaintiff argues that the only defence raised by the
defendants in response to his relief for possession is sham as well as legally barred
whereby the decree for possession can be passed away straight away.
On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the defendants that they have
raised a plausible defence, and thus entitled for a trial.
To weigh the rival contentions of the parties, the facts need to be revisited.
The plaintiff claims to be the owner of suit property, vide registered sale deed dated
05.06.1992. She inducted the defendants as licensees in the suit property being the
family members. When she demanded her property back, the request was avoided. She
then terminated the license, vide notice dated 28.02.2024, but the defendants still did not
concede 	and 	hence, 	the 	suit 	was 	filed, 	which 	now 	remains 	only 	for 	the 	relief 	of
possession.
The defendant in their WS are not disputing the existence or execution of
the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but are only challenging the circumstances leading
to the execution of this sale deed. They have raised a very interesting plea in respect
thereof that the suit property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff by the father of
D-1 being his daughter in law when some Pandit told him to do so. This plea undoubtedly
appears to be sham as well as illegal being barred by Section 3, “Prohibition of Benami
Property Transactions Act, 1988”, as amended up till date. As per this provision, no one
can purchase an immovable property in benami name of other person, except where it
has been purchased for the benefit of his wife or unmarried daughter. So the property
(CS DJ No. 277-24) 	(Page No. 	/ )	1 2
-- 1 of 2 --
purchased by someone in the name of his daughter in law is not exempted from the
rigours of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Thus the only defence
of the defendants that suit property was purchased by the father of D-1 in the name of his
daughter in law (i.e. plaintiff) is barred by Section 4, Prohibition of Benami Property
Transactions Act, 1988. Other than this illegal defence, no other plea has been raised by
the defendants justifying their possession. In absence of any plausible explanation qua
the nature of their possession, they can be nothing more than licensees, more so when
the sale deed of the plaintiff is otherwise admitted. The sending of legal notice dated
28.02.2024 by the plaintiff and subsequent filing of this suit are sufficient indications of
the termination of their license by her. In these circumstances, if the suit is put for trial, it
will not only be a sheer wastage of judicial time, but would indirectly provide a platform to
the defendants to canvas their illegal defence of benami transaction. So I hereby invoke
my power u/s 151 CPC suo motu to put an end to this controversy by passing a decree
for possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, regarding the suit
property at second floor, property No. 49, Block E, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
No orders as to costs.
Decree-sheet be accordingly prepared.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court
on 04-09-2024
(SIDHARTH MATHUR)
District Judge-01 (North),
Rohini, Delhi.
(CS DJ No. 277-24) 	(Page No. 	/ )	2 2
-- 2 of 2 --