9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plea of benami is hit by the Ordinance (2 of 1988)? 2. Whether exhibit A-1 is true and binding on the plaintiffs? Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the plea of benami is hit by the Ordinance (2 of 1988)? The court examined the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance (2 of 1988). The preamble states: "An Ordinance to prohibit the right to recover property held benami and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." Section 2 prohibits the right to recover property held benami. The court deliberated on whether the Ordinance has retrospective operation, ultimately assuming it does for the sake of argument. The court clarified that Section 2 bars the enforcement of any right in respect of property held benami, whether the person is a plaintiff or a defendant. The court distinguished between two classes of transactions denoted by the term "benami": 1. Transactions where the property is purchased by one person in the name of another, with the real purchaser being the former. 2. Sham transactions where the transferor does not intend to transfer the title. The court concluded that the Ordinance does not cover nominal transactions, as Section 81 of the Indian Trusts Act, which governs such transactions, was not repealed by the Ordinance. Therefore, the plea of the nominal nature of the transaction is not hit by the Ordinance (2 of 1988), allowing the court to examine the transaction's merits. Issue 2: Whether exhibit A-1 is true and binding on the plaintiffs? The plaintiffs argued that exhibit A-1, a relinquishment deed executed by Devallu, was nominal and not intended to be acted upon. They contended that it was executed to protect the property from Devallu's wayward life. The defendants maintained that the deed was genuine and binding. The court analyzed the evidence presented by both parties. The first plaintiff, P.W.1, testified that her husband, Devallu, led a wayward life, and the deed was executed to protect the property. P.W.2, a relative of the first defendant, corroborated this, stating that the deed was executed nominally. P.W.3, the first plaintiff's brother and an advocate, also supported this claim, emphasizing that Devallu continued to live in the family house until his death. The defendants' evidence, particularly D.W.1's testimony, was scrutinized. D.W.1's statements about the family's financial situation and the payment of consideration to Devallu were inconsistent and unsupported by evidence. The court found no independent evidence of the payment of Rs. 2,000 to Devallu, and the valuation of the family property suggested that this amount did not represent his rightful share. The court concluded that exhibit A-1 was executed nominally to protect the interests of Devallu's family. The evidence showed that Devallu continued to live in the family house, and there was no proof of him having an independent business or receiving adequate consideration for his share. The court held that exhibit A-1 was not a partition deed and was not binding on the plaintiffs. Conclusion: The court allowed the appeal in part, decreeing the partition of 'A' schedule properties and allotting a one-sixth share to the plaintiffs. The court confirmed the lower court's decree regarding the 'B' schedule property, deeming it non-existent. The defendants were ordered to pay the court fees for both the plaint and the appeal memo.
|
