2023 (8) TMI 1549 - HC - Indian Laws

Gross abuse of the process of law - making false statements 'On Oath' before this Court - prceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. - Whether or not the present case is barred by the provisions of the Benami Act? - HELD THAT - The present application, though having been filed under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., is being treated as an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. All the parties have made their submissions with reference to provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC dealing with rejection of plaint. While considering submissions under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court only has to see the contents of the plaint in order to gauge whether or not the plaint discloses any cause of action and is not otherwise barred by any law. Defence as may be raised in the written statement or in the arguments for rejection of plaint, are not relevant for adjudication under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Thus, in the case of Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Others Vs. Owners Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Others 2006 (1) TMI 600 - SUPREME COURT , Supreme Court has held 'A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings relied on are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, wilful default, undue influence or of the same nature. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the court, the mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint.' Whether or not the present case is barred by the provisions of the Benami Act; or whether or not the plaintiff will or will not have benefit of exceptions as provided in the Benami Act, is an aspect which would have to be decided on the basis of the evidence on record. These are matters of fact which require trial. Disputed questions have been raised on behalf of the parties, which 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 plaintiff in the pliant, without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law in force. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this question cannot be decided at the stage of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and suit cannot be rejected at the threshold by applying principles of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Thus, it is apparent that the question with respect to benami transaction would have to be determined by this Court on the basis of various tests/circumstances as laid down by Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. These facts and circumstances on the basis of which the question of benami transaction is to be determined, would be established only on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. Therefore, it is clear that suit cannot be dismissed at this stage on the basis of the contention raised on behalf of defendant no.1 that suit is barred by the Benami Act. Perusal of the plaint clearly discloses cause of action in favour of plaintiff. Reading of the plaint does not disclose prima facie that the plaint is barred by any law. Therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a summary manner without trial. The various issues as raised on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 can only be decided after trial and considering the evidence on record. The present application is found without any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of abuse of legal process and false statements under oath by the plaintiff.
2. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
3. Ownership and title dispute over the suit property.
4. Alleged Benami transaction and applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
5. Bar of limitation as per the Limitation Act, 1963.
6. Effect of previous admissions and estoppel.
7. Maintainability of the suit in the absence of a prayer for cancellation of the sale deed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Abuse of Legal Process and False Statements:
The defendant No. 1 filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., alleging that the plaintiff filed the suit with dishonest intentions and made false statements under oath. However, the court treated the application as one under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The court emphasized that such allegations require evidence and cannot be summarily decided without a trial.

2. Rejection of the Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC:
The court considered whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by any law. It reiterated that only the averments in the plaint are relevant for this purpose, and the defence or arguments for rejection are immaterial. The court concluded that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by law, thus rejecting the application for rejection of the plaint.

3. Ownership and Title Dispute Over the Suit Property:
The plaintiff claimed co-ownership of the suit property, asserting that it was purchased by the father, Dr. R.N. Jain, in the mother's name. The court noted that the plaintiff's claim was based on the assertion that the property was held by the mother in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the family. The court found that the issue of ownership required a trial to determine the facts and could not be decided at this stage.

4. Alleged Benami Transaction:
The defendant No. 1 argued that the suit was barred by the Benami Act, as the plaintiff's claim was essentially that the father was the real owner despite the property being in the mother's name. The court noted that the alleged transaction occurred before the enactment of the Benami Act in 1988 and that exceptions to the prohibition on benami transactions existed, such as property purchased by a husband in the wife's name. The court held that whether the transaction was benami required evidence and could not be summarily decided.

5. Bar of Limitation:
The defendant No. 1 contended that the suit was barred by limitation, as it was filed more than three years after the execution of the gift deed in 2006. The court held that the limitation period began when the plaintiff first became aware of the alleged infringement of his rights in 2016. Thus, the suit was filed within the limitation period, and this issue required a trial to resolve.

6. Effect of Previous Admissions and Estoppel:
The defendant No. 1 argued that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming ownership due to previous admissions before the DRT. The court held that admissions are not conclusive and can be explained during the trial. The effect of any admissions or estoppel would be considered at the final adjudication stage.

7. Maintainability of the Suit:
The defendant No. 1 argued that the suit was not maintainable without a prayer for cancellation of the sale deed. The court held that this issue would be adjudicated at the final hearing, as it required consideration of the evidence and pleadings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application for rejection of the plaint, finding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by law. The court emphasized that the issues raised required a trial to determine the facts and could not be decided summarily. The matter was scheduled for further proceedings.