Home Case Index All Cases Benami Property Benami Property + HC Benami Property - 2020 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 755 - HC - Benami PropertyTransaction under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act - plaint schedule land and building were attempted to be taken forcible physical possession by the CPI [Indian Communist Party] on the allegation that they are the owners of the same - land and the building described in the plaint schedule, were purchased and constructed by their members, though it was registered in the name of the CPI - HELD THAT:- Ext.A2 cash book shows various amounts stated to have been collected by certain individuals in the year 1993-1994; however, this book contains a docket showing the name of the appellant – Union, which limpidly can only mean that they took possession of the same after they were formed in the year 2004. The persons mentioned in the said cash book have not been identified nor is there anything to show that they are members of the appellant – Union. No different is the case of the receipt books, namely Exts.A4 to A25, wherein again various persons and institutions have shown to be the subscribers and contributors to the construction, but without any evidence being led by the appellant – Union that they are their members or in any manner connected with them. Therefore, a case under the Benami Prohibition Act can never be maintained by the appellant on the afore factual foundations because, if they have to do so, they would have to first establish expressly that they had contributed the entire consideration and that the purchase of the land and the construction of the building were intended for their use immediately or in future. As already seen above, when the land was purchased or when the building was constructed, the appellant – Union had not come into being and it can, therefore, never be taken that they had made any contribution, either for the purchase or construction, which is ineluctable because they themselves admit that it is allegedly their members who had made the contribution but not them. However, this would not be of any avail to them, because neither is their membership register brought on record nor is there anything to establish, even in a whispering note, that the persons shown in Ext.A2 cash book or Exts.A4 to A25 receipt books are their members or in any manner even remotely connected with them. Members of the Union have not been made parties, either as appellants or as respondents, and in their absence on the party array, the allegations made in the plaint can certainly never be proved. CPI seeking recovery of possession of the plaint schedule land and building based on title - Appellant – Union does not assert any rights over the property as a trespasser or as an interloper, but solely as the title holder, invoking the provisions of the Benami Prohibition Act. They do not even say that they have a licence to remain in the property or that there is any other interest created in their favour by the CPI. Obviously, therefore, the plea of the CPI to seek recovery of the property becomes manifestly justified.
|