Home Case Index All Cases Benami Property Benami Property + HC Benami Property - 2018 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1871 - HC - Benami PropertyBenami Transaction - Scope of Section 4(1) of the Benami Transaction Act, 1988 - civil revision invoking jurisdiction of this court under section 115 of CPC has been preferred by the petitioners, who are defendants before trial Court - HELD THAT:- The question as to whether bar would be applicable in suits which are filed after coming into force of the Act of 1988 has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Duvuru Jaya Mohana Reddy and another v. Alluru Nagi Reddy and others [1993 (4) TMI 335 - SUPREME COURT] and it has been held that Section 4(1) of the Act of 1988 would apply to proceedings pending on the date of the commencement of the Act and the provisions were held applicable to an appeal that was pending. In the matter of R. Rajagopal Reddy (Dead) by LRs and others v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (Dead) by LRs [1995 (1) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court in paragraph 11 of its judgment has clearly held that no such suit, claim or action shall be permitted to be filed or entertained or admitted to the portals of any court for seeking such a relief after coming into force of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1988. Undisputedly, the instant suit has been filed on 28.03.2017 after coming into force of the Act of 1988 and plaintiff is claiming title on the basis of Transaction which is said to have been taken place on 13.03.1981 and 09.06.1988. This being so, the prohibition imposed under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1988 is squarely attracted as the plaintiff has filed the suit after coming into force of Act of 1988 in order to enforce his right under Benami Transaction which is specifically barred under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1988 and as such the plaint is barred by virtue of Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC, therefore, the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that the said question is mixed question of law and fact, as it is pure question of law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and it is held that the suit is barred by Section 4(1) of the Benami Transaction Act, 1988 and therefore, it is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC. The civil revision is allowed as indicated hereinabove with no order as to costs. The order passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the suit is held barred by Section 4(1) of the Act of 1988 and the plaint filed by the plaintiff stands rejected.
|