9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s stated that defendant no.1 is an agriculturist and if the property purchased in the name of defendant no.1, the defendant no.1 agreed that though the property was in the name of defendant no.1, the plaintiff will be considered as owner of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that through defendant no.1 entire amount of sale consideration has been paid by the plaintiff and no amount of sale consideration of the suit property has been paid by defendant no.1. Moreover, in the suit, the plaintiff has also taken contention that thereafter it was only because of the intervention of the plaintiff, that the sale deed was registered,whereby the defendant no.1 purchased suit property in his name from Atmaram Kalaji and Kashiji Kalaji and it is the case of the plaintiff that since the date of registration of the sale-deed, rectification document dated 31.01.1989, the plaintiff has become the owner and occupier of the suit premises. It is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that as the name of the plaintiff could not be entered into in revenue record, the plaintiff had full trust on the defendant no.1 and only recently the plaintiff came to know that the defendant no.1 has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the suit is barred on the ground of limitation. 5. With respect to the fact that the application can be filed at any stage, the defendant has stated that the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly state that an application can be filed at any stage when the suit from the plain reading of the plaint is barred by law, and therefore, as the suit filed by the present plaintiff is bogus, the trial Court at any stage can exercise its powers under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and reject the plaint. Moreover, the defendant has relied on the provision of section 4 of Benami Transaction Act, 1988, therefore, the same does not need to go into evidence as the same is a point of law. In view of the said fact, the petitioner/defendant has argued that the plaint is required to be rejected as it is barred by law, and therefore, the order passed below Exhibit-94 is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned advocate for the original plaintiff has mainly argued that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court will have to look at the plaint and the documents annexe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Sidik,2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 247160 (v) Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle, 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 74446 8. Learned advocate for the respondent has relied on the following judgments:- (i) Daliben Valjibhai v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai, 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 74555. (ii) Salim d. Agboatwal v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar, 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67704. (iii) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese Rep By its Procurator Devssias Son Rev. Father oseph Kappil, 2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 68589. 9. Having heard learned advocate for the parties, the fact remains that the application that has been filed by the defendant is on the ground of plaint being barred under the provision of Limitation Act and Benami Transaction Act, 1988. The plaintiff has stated that the cause of action to file the suit has arisen as the sale deed has been executed by defendant No.1 on 14.08.2006 and thereby for the first time defendant No.1 has breached the faith and trust put by the plaintiff by virtue of the understanding that was arrived at in the year 1989. The documents produced vide Exhibit 50. The plaintiff vide Exhibit-3/1 has produced the receipt d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessment at the stage when application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure is heard. Moreover, trial Court has already framed issues rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the present issue whether the suit is filed under Section 4 of Benami Transaction Act, 1988 and has also framed issue with respect to whether the suit is filed on the ground of limitation. 10. In view of the fact that the trial Court has also framed issue with respect to whether the issue of suit being hit of section-4 of Benami Transaction Act,1988 and also on the point of limitation. The fact remains that the judgments on which the learned advocate for the defendant relies are on the issue of limitation but in view of the fact that the plaintiff has categorically stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has claimed that he gained knowledge of the fact that the defendant is not ready and willing to abide by the understanding that have been arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in the year 1988 whereby the defendant had agreed not to transfer, assign, sell the property and had also admitted the fact that the plaintiff is the owner of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
