Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Victim of Jealousy (NONE)     30 March 2012

Challenge by legal heirs to property sold 40 years back

I apologize for a repost as I realized later a section on forum stating Property Law > Disputes where I thought it is better to put forward the query again:

 

 

I require valuable inputs from experts on the case being brought forward by legal heir on a property in question which was sold by their mother 40 years back to their maternal grand mother.

Mother of plaintiff (P) had sold the property to her maternal grand mother through a registered sale deed 40 years back. The sale deed records 50% of payment as received and balance payable in installments. The possession continues since sale deed executed has been with defendent (D) and his family who is the son of maternal grandmother of  Plaintiff. 

P is now contesting this sale on two grounds - claiming the property as Benami stating their father bought same in name of mother and she had no funds to buy it originally and later mother had no authority to sell. It is part of their HUF hence elgible for partition as per their shareholding. The  second ground being prepared is that the balance payment as stated in sales deed was never received. P is demanding injuction against further sale of property or to create third party right,, cancellation of sale deed and demanding possession back.

D claims that the property was very much elgible to be sold by the mother of P as she was individual tax assessee and sought permission from the tax authority in form of certificate issued as approval also mentioned in registered sale deed prior to sale. They had done check on this prior to sale and then only setlled the payment infront of registrar. It is important to note that husband was alive at time of sale by mother of P and remained to be so after 6 years of sale never challenging it then also. The sale was executed and balance part payment were made in full although no receipt as such was taken from party as it was always in good faith since the funds were given to mother of P by her maternal grand mother in a relationship of trust.

The entire background as given to understand from reviewing the case prepared by P is to harass D after such elapse of time as P claims the property was never sold as her mother had no right to sell and gave the place only to her maternal grand mother to temporary reside with her family till she was alive.  First notice was received by D on such grounds 3.5 years ago which was suitably replied to and future notices as well were sent contradictory to each other first claiming for partition as right of daughter then rejecting the sale. Each notice was replied to and stated that absolute ownership is with family of D and necessary Caveat was filed on record.

Common sense prevails in such a case that Act of Limitation applies although if we presume honorable judge allows the case to be contested then what are implications on D and his defence in case -

A) Claim being raised that it was benami by P? Since sale is 40 years old how can now one take cover of Benami title? 

B) Registered sale deed exists between Ps mother and maternal grand mother against which more than 50% of payment was received and balance paid later on. Mutation as well was carried out. Although it is difficult to find record of payment of balance considering it is 40 years old?

C) Possession with D since property was bought and the entire family of D resides there since long.?



Learning

 3 Replies

Adv.R.P.Chugh (Advocate/Legal Consultant (rpchughadvocatesupremecourt@hotmail.com))     30 March 2012

 

The Claim is misconcieved, palpably & hopelessly barred by limitation. At once move an application u/order 7 R 11 of the CPC (demurrer's claim) for rejection fo the plaint as the same is barred by law.  If the court does not reject. The Court would frame a preliminary issue as regards limitation and may go on to dispose of the suit on the same.

 

If the plaintiff is claiming property to be joint family property (brought benami in favour of his mother) then also he could have challenged the alienation within 12 years - or if he was a minor within 3 years of turning major. 

 

Don't even think about the merits. Let's see if he tries to claim any exemptions under the Limitation Act

1 Like

Victim of Jealousy (NONE)     30 March 2012

With reference to limitation - P claims that they were not aware of the sale deed and only came to know of it last year. At time of sale P being the daughter was minor although she turned major 3 years after the sale. She is today around 56 years old. P's mother passed away 5 years ago and the notice was sent to D a year after her death. As per D it was well known to all that they purchased the property from P's mother 40 years ago and such a deed exists which is now being challenged because of straining of family relations and P's family disgruntled with motives of greed and attain rights through Hook or crook.

As far as filing 7 R 11 is concerned the lawyer recommends that at this stage because of caveat all litigation file was received in advance by them on behalf of D. They would try to get the litigation dismissed on ground that the case is not maintainable because of limitation and benami prohibition act. This is prior to court issuing notice to D as party in the case. They plead that 7 R 11 would be filed only once the notice is issued to D although that too has a narrow approach and probably litigation would continue. It is hence I inquired on consequences as you correctly pointed out that it is hopelessly barred by time although one should be ready to consider merits and case of defense for D assuming that it shall be prolonged matter involving examination of all facts!

Chintan Patel (advocate)     30 March 2012

Hi Every One

Plz guide me on following

My Father and uncles had purchased the property in 1990 and then  they were served notice fro paying less stamp duty, after then writ was field in Hon. High Court which was rejected and now we have been served a fresh notice from Collecot to pay satmp duty but meanwhile  the property was sold out by us now what should we do?

If we do not pay the stamp duty tahn what can be happended?


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register