2005 (9) TMI 684 - HC - Benami Property

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the partition suit filed by the plaintiffs.
2. Application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
3. Rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Preliminary issue determination under Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Requirement of ad-valorem court fee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Partition Suit:
The plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 134 of 2003 for partition of their share in the suit land, claiming that Ganouri Mahto died in 1979 leaving behind two sons, Basudeo Prasad and Brahmdeo Singh. The defendants, heirs of Basudeo Prasad, challenged this by filing a petition under Order VII, Rule 11 to reject the plaint, arguing that the property in question was purchased by Mostt. Manorama from her Stridhan and was not a joint family property.

2. Application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988:
The defendants argued that if the property is considered joint family property, it must be deemed a benami transaction, which is prohibited under the Act. They cited various case laws to support their contention that the bar under the Act applies to the suit. The plaintiffs countered by stating that the purchases were made by the Karta of the family from joint family funds, and the property was always treated as joint family property, thus not falling under the benami prohibition.

3. Rejection of Plaint under Order VII, Rule 11:
The court examined whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, which allows rejection if the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, is undervalued, insufficiently stamped, barred by law, not filed in duplicate, or non-compliant with Rule 9. The defendants' petition did not raise issues of cause of action, valuation, court fees, duplicate plaint, or non-compliance with Rule 9, but only the bar under the Act.

4. Preliminary Issue Determination under Order XIV, Rule 2:
The court also considered whether the issue of maintainability should be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2, which allows for the disposal of a case on a preliminary issue of law. The defendants did not challenge the court's jurisdiction or show that the suit could be disposed of on an issue of law alone, but only raised the bar under the Act.

5. Requirement of Ad-Valorem Court Fee:
The defendants claimed that the suit was filed to avoid paying ad-valorem court fees, arguing that the real substance of the relief sought required such fees. However, the court noted that this issue was not raised in the defendants' petition and must be considered at the final hearing based on the form of pleadings and the relief claimed.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the suit could not be dismissed at this preliminary stage based on the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It emphasized that the issues of benami transaction and the intention behind the property purchase in 1956 and 1965 could only be decided after evidence is presented at the final hearing. The court found no jurisdictional error in the lower court's order rejecting the defendants' petition and dismissed the civil revision.