9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the present suit in light of Order II, Rule 2, CPC, and Order 23, Rule 1. 2. Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Present Suit: Order II, Rule 2, CPC: - The plaintiff contends that the present suit seeks a wider array of reliefs compared to the previous suit, including declaration, partition, possession, and a decree for accounts. - The court notes that both suits are based on the same cause of action, seeking the same relief of a one-fourth share in the properties of Kailash Berry. - The court finds that the plaintiff could have sought the additional reliefs in the previous suit, making the current suit precluded by Order II, Rule 2. Order 23, Rule 1: - The plaintiff withdrew from the previous suit without seeking leave to file another suit, which precludes the filing of the present suit under Order 23, Rule 1(4). - The Supreme Court's interpretation in Hulas Rai Baij Nath v. Firm K.B. Bass & Co. and Upadhyay & Co v. State of U.P. supports this preclusion, emphasizing that withdrawal without permission bars subsequent suits on the same cause of action. - The court concludes that both Order II, Rule 2, and Order 23, Rule 1, bar the present suit. 2. Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988: Sections 2(a), 3(2)(a), and 4 of the Benami Act: - The plaintiff argues that the properties held by Defendants 1, 2, and 4 are in a fiduciary capacity, making the suit maintainable under Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Act. - The court explains that the Benami Act aims to outlaw benami transactions and actions to enforce rights against benamidars. - The exception under Section 4(3)(b) applies only if the property is held in a fiduciary capacity, which the plaintiff must prove. Fiduciary Capacity: - The Supreme Court in Canbank Financial Services -vs- Custodian and Aarti Sabharwal -vs- Jitendra Singh Chopra clarifies that fiduciary capacity involves relationships implying great confidence and trust, such as those of a trustee, guardian, or director. - The court finds that the plaintiff's claims are vague and lack specificity regarding the ownership and acquisition of the assets by Kailash Berry. - The court concludes that the mere assertion of fiduciary capacity is insufficient to escape the bar under Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Act. Conclusion: - The suit is not maintainable due to the preclusion under Order II, Rule 2, and Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC. - The plaintiff's claims do not meet the requirements to invoke the exception under Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Act. - Consequently, the plaint in the civil suit is rejected, and all pending applications are disposed of.
|
