1997 (4) TMI 543 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Review of judgment in Title Suit, Benami ownership, Application of Benami Transaction Act retrospectively, Inheritance rights of unchaste lady, Overruling of previous judgment

Review of Judgment in Title Suit:
The plaintiff filed a petition for the review of a judgment in a Title Suit, where the plaintiff claimed title based on a purchase in 1963 from a settlee of the property. The defendants had purchased the property in 1968 from the daughter of the settlee. The lower courts had ruled in favor of the plaintiff, directing the defendants to give vacant possession of the property. The main question raised was whether the Courts had correctly decided the issue of Benami ownership. The single Judge set aside the judgments of the lower courts, citing the Benami Transaction Act, which extinguished the right of the real owner to recover property held benami.

Application of Benami Transaction Act Retrospectively:
The single Judge held that the Benami Transaction Act applies retrospectively to pending cases, eliminating the right of the real owner to recover property held benami. This decision was based on the case of Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare. The judgments of the lower courts were set aside on this basis.

Inheritance Rights of Unchaste Lady:
The plaintiff's counsel argued that the daughter of the settlee, who sold the property to the defendants, was an unchaste lady and therefore not entitled to inherit the property. Citing various legal precedents, the counsel contended that the sale deed was illegal and void. However, the Judge noted that this aspect was not raised as a question during the appeal and, therefore, could not be considered in a review petition.

Overruling of Previous Judgment:
The plaintiff's counsel further argued that the judgment in Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare, which formed the basis of the review decision, had been overruled by a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan. The counsel contended that the review decision was based on incorrect legal grounds. However, the Judge held that such matters should be addressed through an appeal rather than a review petition.

In conclusion, the review petition was dismissed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs. The Judge emphasized that the issues raised by the plaintiff's counsel should have been addressed through an appeal rather than a review petition, and the decision was based on the application of the Benami Transaction Act retrospectively.