2020 (6) TMI 461 - HC - Benami Property

Benami transaction - real owners of the property - unity of title and unity of possession between the parties in respect of suit land and the structures - Some of the lands were encroached by the encroachers and some of the lands have gone into the widening of road as such the plaintiff has prayed before the trial court to partition the property into half -half share irrespective of the sale deeds as the property has been purchased under the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act 1988 - HELD THAT - This second appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law (i) Whether the Exhibit-10 and Exhibit-A A/1 have been rightly considered by the learned appellate court? (ii) Whether the property is hit by the provision of Benami Transaction (Prohibitory) Act 1988? (iii) Whether without any material showing the jointness of the parties the appellate court can declare that defendant nos. 2 3 who are sons of defendant no.1 are not the real owner of the suit land which was transferred to them by way of registered sale deed dated 28.07.1985 (Exhibit-A). Call for Lower Court Records.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reversal of judgment and decree in a second appeal.
2. Interpretation of sale deeds and agreements.
3. Application of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
4. Unity of title and possession between parties.
5. Consideration of substantial questions of law.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed a second appeal against the reversal of a judgment and decree by the District Judge. The dispute arose from the auction of a property where the plaintiff was the highest bidder. The property was later divided through sale deeds executed in favor of different parties. The plaintiff alleged that the property was purchased under the Benami Transaction Act and sought partition. The trial court dismissed the suit, which was then appealed by the plaintiff.

2. The appellate court considered the sale deeds and agreements to determine ownership. It was argued that the defendants were not the real owners as they only appeared on paper. The court analyzed the agreements and sale deeds to establish the true ownership of the property. The appellants contended that the appellate court misinterpreted the documents, leading to a substantial question of law.

3. The issue of whether the property fell under the Benami Transaction Act was raised. The plaintiff claimed that the property was purchased under this Act, while the defendants disputed this assertion. The lower courts had differing opinions on this matter, leading to the second appeal to clarify the application of the Act in this case.

4. Unity of title and possession between the parties was a crucial aspect of the case. The appellate court's decision regarding joint ownership and possession of the property was challenged by the appellants. They argued that the court failed to consider the implications of the sale deeds and agreements, leading to erroneous findings. The issue of jointness and ownership was central to the dispute.

5. The second appeal was admitted based on substantial questions of law, including the correct interpretation of key documents, the application of the Benami Transaction Act, and the determination of ownership rights. The court directed the Registrar to investigate the signature on the decree, highlighting procedural concerns. The case involved complex legal interpretations and factual analysis, necessitating a detailed review of the lower court's decisions.