TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24.07.2013 severing her rights over the suit schedule property and declared him as the beneficiary and the rightful owner, as all the charges, taxes were borne by him and paid entire sale consideration in respect of the same. In view of the said pleadings, it can be said that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit claim is barred under Section 4 of the Act is not tenable. The suit claim is not barred under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. - the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. - Civil Revision Petition No.2503 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2023 - Honourable Sri Justice A. Santhosh Reddy For The Petitioner : T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has fraudulently obtained a registered gift settlement deed vide doc.No.911/2019, dated 22.02.2019 from respondent No.2. It is also stated that the plaint has to be rejected as barred under the The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (for short the Act ) as no suit claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held Benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of the person claiming to be the real owner of such property. 5. Respondent No.1-plaitiff resisted the claim by way of filing counter-affidavit. It is stated that though he has purchased the suit schedule property in the name of respondent No.2, he has been in possession and enjoyment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that respondent No.1 is a retired Government employee and respondent No.2 is his natural mother. The petitioner is brother of respondent No.1. 11. Respondent No.1 purchased the suit schedule property by paying entire sale consideration and got executed registered sale deed in favour of his mother, who is respondent No.2 herein and her name is mutated in revenue records. Subsequently, his mother executed release deed dated 24.07.2013 in favour of respondent No.1. However, petitioner No.1 visited the house of respondent No.1 in order to grab the property got executed registered gift deed dated 22.02.2019. Hence, respondent No.1 filed the present suit. 12. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to look into Section 4 of the Act, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -plaintiff on 24.07.2013 severing her rights over the suit schedule property and declared him as the beneficiary and the rightful owner, as all the charges, taxes were borne by him and paid entire sale consideration in respect of the same. In view of the said pleadings, it can be said that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit claim is barred under Section 4 of the Act is not tenable. 14. In view of the foregoing narration of both factual and legal premise, I am of the view that the suit claim is not barred under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interferenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
