2012 (1) TMI 405 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of plaint u/s Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Applicability of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988.
3. Pleadings and material facts in the plaint.

Summary:

Issue 1: Rejection of plaint u/s Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The defendants filed IA. No. 721/1997 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the rejection of the plaint. The learned Single Judge allowed this application, opining that the prohibition contained in Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 barred late Smt. Santosh Malik from seeking partition and possession of the property.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988
The legal heirs of Santosh Malik argued that the suit was maintainable under Clause (a) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988. However, the court found that the plaint did not plead that the person in whose name the property is held is a co-parcener in a Hindu Undivided Family, nor that the property is held for the benefit of the co-parceners. The court concurred with the Single Judge that the suit was barred by Sub-Section 1 of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988.

Issue 3: Pleadings and material facts in the plaint
The court scrutinized the pleadings and found them to be vague and lacking in material facts. The plaintiff, Santosh Malik, claimed a 1/3rd share in the property based on her contribution of Rs. 900/- towards its purchase. However, the court noted that the plaint did not specify the day, month, or year when the family decisions were taken. The court emphasized that pleadings must disclose material facts and that vague pleas are no pleas in the eyes of law. The court cited several precedents to highlight the importance of detailed pleadings and concluded that the plaint did not disclose a real cause of action.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal due to the vagueness in the pleadings and the lack of material facts, concurring with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The court refrained from imposing costs.