The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Dr. Ila Gupta, who claimed ownership rights over a disputed duplex flat in Vasundhara, Ghaziabad. The case, entangled in family ties and financial transactions, revolved around allegations that her paternal uncle, Om Prakash Gupta, had fraudulently claimed the property in his own name.
Background
Dr. Ila Gupta, a practicing medical professional, alleged that back in 2005 she entrusted her uncle, Om Prakash Gupta, with the responsibility of applying for a house in the Vasundhara housing scheme. Since she was busy with her profession, she claimed she gave him the funds- ₹85,000 as registration money and later ₹7.6 lakh- for the allotment process. According to her, this arrangement was based on trust and family relations, with her uncle acting only as a ''name-lender'' while she remained the true owner.
But things soured soon after the allotment. Gupta alleged that her uncle began to assert ownership and even completed further instalments without her knowledge. This, she claimed, was a breach of trust. A legal notice followed, and eventually, a suit was filed in 2006 seeking declaration, possession, and injunction.
Also Read : Supreme Court Declares Beggars' Homes Must Ensure Dignity, Slams Negligence in Delhi Cholera Deaths Case
The trial court, however, dismissed her plea in 2013, granting her only a partial relief: return of ₹8.46 lakh with 6% interest. It was this dismissal that she challenged before the High Court.
Court’s Observations
Justice Sandeep Jain heard detailed arguments from both sides. Dr. Gupta's lawyer pressed on the point of fiduciary relationship, saying:
''The uncle was in a position of trust, being her paternal uncle. He applied in his own name only to avail quota benefits, but the real funding came from the appellant.''
The defense, however, countered sharply. Om Prakash Gupta insisted he was the true owner, highlighting that he paid the majority of the flat's cost- about ₹25 lakh- through his pension, savings, and contributions from his family.
''She only gave me a short-term loan of ₹8.45 lakh,'' his counsel argued.
The bench went through the evidence in detail. It noted that the sale deed and possession both stood in the uncle's name, and that financial support alone could not establish Dr. Gupta as the real owner. Importantly, the court underlined that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, barred such claims unless fiduciary capacity was clearly proven.
Quoting from its order, the bench observed:
''The plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that defendant no. 1 was in a fiduciary capacity vis-à- vis the plaintiff. Financial transactions alone cannot substitute for legal ownership.''
Also Read : Madhya Pradesh High Court Halts Live Streaming of Criminal Cases Amid Misuse Allegations
Decision
After weighing all submissions, the court upheld the trial court’s findings. It confirmed that Om Prakash Gupta was the lawful owner and that the house was not a benami holding for Dr. Ila Gupta. The appeal was dismissed as meritless.
However, the earlier trial court order - directing Om Prakash Gupta to refund ₹8,46,865 with 6% annual interest - remains intact. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs.
The judgment closed with clarity: Dr. Ila Gupta cannot claim ownership or possession of the Vasundhara flat.
Case Title : Dr. Ila Gupta vs. Om Prkaash Gupta and Another
Case Number: First Appeal From Order (FAFO) No. 1238 of 2013
