Home Case Index All Cases Benami Property Benami Property + SC Benami Property - 2020 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 797 - SC - Benami PropertyBenami Transactions or not - Dishonor of Cheque - Suit for recovery - Lending of advance to the accused - The trial court was of the opinion that the evidence clearly showed that the amount had been deposited by Plaintiff in his bank account and that this circumstance, supported Accused plea that the amount was returned immediately. - HC decreed the order of trial court. HELD THAT:- The defendant/appellants arguments are two-fold: one, that the document on which the High Court returned its findings was a photocopy and was therefore, inadmissible; and two, that the question whether the sale consideration was ₹ 2,30,000/- or ₹ 1,30,000/- could not have been gone into, since that argument was based on a prohibited transaction, outlawed by the Benami Act. As far as the first question goes, this court notices that the plaintiff had put the matter, during the course of cross examination, to the appellant/defendant. The latter, unsurprisingly, admitted the document, despite the fact that it was a photocopy. The plaintiff had argued that the original of that document was with the purchaser: this was not denied. the argument that the plaintiff’s plea regarding the real consideration being barred, has no merit. The plaintiff did not claim return of any amount from the buyer; the suit is not based on any plea involving examination of a benami transaction. Besides, the plaintiff is not asserting any claim as benami owner, nor urging a defense that any property or the amount claimed by him is a benami transaction. Therefore, the defendant appellant’s argument is clearly insubstantial. In the present case, the appellants did not prove that the transaction (to which they were not parties) was benami; on the contrary, the appellant’s argument was merely that the transaction could not be said to be for a consideration in excess of ₹ 1,30,000/-: in the context of a defense in a suit for money decree. The defendant/appellants never said that the plaintiff or someone other than the purchaser was the real owner; nor was the interest in the property, the subject matter of the recovery suit - Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the conclusions and the findings in the impugned judgment are justified. Appeal dismissed.
|