Anathema In This Age To Diminish Autonomous Status Of Women By Treating Her Merely As Adjunct To Her Husband- Delhi HC In Property Dispute Case
The Delhi High Court has allowed an application filed by Defendant No. 2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint that aimed to put a permanent injunction on the property held by Defendant No. 2.
The Single Judge Bench headed by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that “merely because defendant No. 2 is the wife of a partner of the firm, she does not ipso-facto become a partner of the firm, inter-alia since as per section 5 of the Partnership Act, a relationship of partnership arises from contract and not from status of the parties”.
Further talking about the attempt by plaintiffs to prevent the usage of property by Defendant No. 2, the Court stated “it is anathema in this day and age to diminish the autonomous status of a woman by treating her merely as an adjunct to her husband, least of all in relation to what the law recognises to be her absolute property”.
Senior Advocate Pawanjit S. Bindra appeared for the Plaintiffs while Advocate Prabhsahay Kaur appeared for Defendant No.1 and Senior Advocate H.S. Phoolka appeared on behalf of Defendant No.2.
The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed to reject the plaint stating that the plaint does not reveal the cause of action and that it is barred by law. The Petitioners in their plea stated that a property in Rajouri Garden, Delhi which is in the name of Defendant No.2, is a joint property and that it should be divided in 50% between the plaintiffs and defendants. Further, the Petitioner sought an injunction to stop the Defendants from using, or reselling the property in question.
A Sale Deed dated March 27, 1992, in which the property is in name of the Defendant No.2 was also sought to be quashed by the Petitioners. Reliance was placed on a Settlement Deed of 2013 between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. Defendant No.2 filed an application seeking the rejection of the plaint.
The Court said “The plaintiffs do not dispute that the subject property was purchased by defendant No.2. The plaintiffs contend that funds of their partnership firm were used for purchasing the subject property. Nowhere in the plaint do they aver as to when or how funds of the partnership firm were paid towards purchasing the subject property.”
On the question of Defendant No.2 falling in the exception of Section 2(9)(A)(ii) to the definition of benami transaction, the Court said “there is not even a whisper of an allegation that defendant No.2 was a partner of the partnership firm, the monies of which were allegedly routed for purchasing the subject property.”
For the period of limitation, the Court stated that “The settlement deed, on which the plaintiffs place reliance, by their own reckoning came to be signed in February 2013. The present suit was filed on 10.09.2018 i.e., more than 21 years after Sale Deed dated 27.03.1992 was executed. Clearly therefore, the present suit is way beyond the limitation of 03 years stipulated in Article 59 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, with no scope for any extension or exclusion of time or condonation of delay under any of the provisions of the Limitation Act.”
The Court thereby allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and disposed of the suit by rejecting the plaint.
Cause Title: Charanjeet Singh & Anr. v. Harvinder Singh & Anr.
