2020 (3) TMI 1108 - HC - Benami Property

Benami transactions - Pleadings of the respondents is that the money was provided by the father - HELD THAT - From para 2 of the plaint, it is clear that the respondents/plaintiffs have merely mentioned that the money was provided by the father of the respondent no.1, i.e. Late Govind Singh Tomar. It is nowhere mentioned by the plaintiffs that Govind Singh Tomar had entered into an agreement to purchase the property in the name of plaintiff no.1. Under these circumstances, at the most it can be said that Late Govind Singh Tomar had provided the money to respondent no.1 for entering into an agreement to sell. In the present case also the pleadings of the respondents is that the money was provided by the father. Thus, it is held that merely because the respondent no.1 had taken financial help from his father for making the sale consideration, it would not make the agreement to sell a Benami transaction, so as to push it into the forbidden area of the provisions envisaged under Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court did not commit any mistake by rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Summary

Issues:
- Application filed under Order XIV Rule 2 read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed by trial court.
- Suit for refund of advance amount paid, claimed to be barred under Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act.
- Argument based on Supreme Court and High Court judgments regarding money as property.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a revision under Section 115 of CPC against the trial court's order dismissing their application under Order XIV Rule 2 read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC in Civil Suit No.4B/2014. The respondents had initiated a suit seeking a refund of the advance amount paid to the petitioner. The crux of the petitioner's argument was that since the money for the advance was provided by the respondent's deceased father, the suit should be barred under the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act. The petitioner relied on various judgments, including one from the Supreme Court, to support their contention that money is also considered property.

Upon hearing both parties, the court examined the plaint and noted that it only mentioned the deceased father providing the money to the respondent for entering into the agreement to sell. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment to emphasize that the Benami Act defines a transaction where property is transferred for consideration paid or provided by another person. The court highlighted that the word "provided" in the Act should not be narrowly construed based on the source of funds used for the transaction. In this case, the court held that merely receiving financial help from the father for the sale consideration did not make the agreement a Benami transaction under the Act.

Consequently, the court concluded that the trial court did not err in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, the court affirmed the order passed by the 17th Additional District Judge, Gwalior, and dismissed the petitioner's revision.