The Delhi High Court has recently allowed a woman's plea, affirming her as the sole and absolute owner of a property. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, presiding over a single-judge bench, granted the application moved by the wife under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The application sought the rejection of a plaint seeking a decree of permanent injunction to prevent the defendants, including her husband, from creating any third-party rights in a property located in Rajouri Garden, Delhi.
Contentions of the Plaintiff:
The plaintiffs contended that the property in question was a "partnership property" belonging to the partnership firm in which they were partners. They claimed that it was jointly owned by them and the couple, with each side holding a 50 percent share. Consequently, they sought a court declaration to validate their claim. The plaintiffs argued that the sale deed registered in favour of the woman in March 1992 should be cancelled as she was not the sole or absolute owner of the property.
Observations by the Court:
Upon reviewing the records, the court determined that the property stood solely in the woman's name and was her absolute property. The court emphasized that there were no averments in the plaint suggesting any restrictions on the woman's sole and absolute ownership. Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiffs themselves admitted to having used third parties to channel funds for the purchase of the property in the woman's name.
Justice Bhambhani, in allowing the woman's application, emphasized the importance of recognizing a woman's autonomous status, stating that it is anathema in today's age to treat her merely as an adjunct to her husband, especially in relation to the law's recognition of her absolute property ownership.
The court also addressed the plaintiffs' claim of a fiduciary relationship between the woman and the partnership firm. It clarified that there is no legal basis for assuming that a partner's wife automatically becomes a partner in the firm. The court highlighted that a partnership relationship arises from a contractual agreement and not from the parties' status.
Additionally, the court noted that the suit was time-barred, as it was filed after 21 years, far beyond the three-year limitation stipulated in Article 59 of the Limitation Act.
The decision of the Court:
Considering these factors, the court concluded that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action requiring a trial, and the reliefs claimed were barred by law.
Case Name: Shri Charanjeet Singh & Anr. V. Shri Harvinder Singh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Case No.: I.A.15951/2018
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr. Pawanjit S. Bindra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Lakshay Dhamija, Advocate and Mr. Sahil Dutta, Advocate for plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2.
Advocates of the Respondent: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Advocate for defendant No.1. Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate. Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepak Vohra, Advocate and Ms. Shilpa Dewan, Advocate for Applicant/defendant No.2.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
