2021 (8) TMI 245 - HC - Benami Property

Benami Transaction - Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami - disputed joint family property - acquisitions by and in the name of a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family or the benefit of such coparceners in the family - HELD THAT - The pleading of the plaintif Yakub Mohammad is that disputed property is a joint family property and appellants/defendants are his real brother but the disputed property is on his name and this dispute cannot be decided only by advancing argument while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It is clear from order sheets that appellants/defendants did not file written statement and they had only filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has already held in Pawan Kumar 2019 (4) TMI 232 - SUPREME COURT that the disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 applies in those cases only where the statement made by the plaintif in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law in force. Lower appellate Court has rightly observed that the order of learned trail Court being not sustainable in the eye of law set-aside and remitted back the case to the trial Court for deciding afresh. The order of the learned appellate Court is based on proper appreciation of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Vs. Babulal since Deceased Through Legal Representatives and Others which does not calls for interference by this Court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against judgment and order passed by Additional District Judge remitting the case back to the trial Court.
2. Interpretation of Section 4 of the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, 1988.
3. Application of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of the Act.
4. Consideration of disputed questions of fact at the stage of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
5. Adjudication of the matter based on evidence and fuller consideration post the evidence stage.

Issue 1:
The appellants/defendants appealed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, remitting the case back to the trial Court. The Civil Judge Class-II had initially rejected the plaint based on Section 4(1) of the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, 1988. However, the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal by the respondent No.1/plaintiff and remitted the case for fresh adjudication, setting aside the trial Court's order. The appellants argued against this interference, citing a Supreme Court decision in a similar matter.

Issue 2:
The interpretation of Section 4 of the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, 1988 was crucial in this case. Section 4(1) prohibits suits to enforce rights in property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held. The Section provides exceptions for coparceners in a Hindu undivided family and trustees holding property for beneficiaries. The Court analyzed the application of these provisions to the disputed property in question.

Issue 3:
The application of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of the Benami Act was debated. The trial Court had invoked this rule to reject the plaint, but the appellants contended that the case should not have been remitted back without a proper consideration of the legal aspects. The respondent supported the decision, highlighting the need for a detailed examination based on evidence.

Issue 4:
The consideration of disputed questions of fact at the stage of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was a significant point of contention. The Supreme Court precedent emphasized that such questions should be adjudicated based on evidence rather than being summarily decided at the initial stages of the case. The Court examined whether the disputed nature of the property and relationships involved required a more in-depth assessment.

Issue 5:
The Court emphasized the need for adjudication of the matter based on evidence and a fuller consideration post the evidence stage. The respondent argued that the suit was saved by a specific provision of the Benami Act and required a detailed examination during the trial. The Court upheld the decision of the lower appellate Court, which remitted the case back for fresh adjudication, following the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in similar cases.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the legal issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Court's reasoning in arriving at the decision.