2021 (10) TMI 899 - HC - Benami Property

Benami Transactions - ownership in the property - ancestral property - when respondents (original Plaintiffs) approached the concerned authority for mutation, it was realized that the name of the ancestor i.e. father/father in law of the original defendants was found on record, along with the name of the mother of the respondent no. 1, on the strength of sale deed dated 29.3.1993 in respect of the suit property - whether the plaint deserved to be rejected as being hit by the provisions of the aforesaid Act? - whether the statement made in paragraphs 7 and 8 would be enough to conclude that the suit itself stood barred by the provisions of the said Act and therefore, the plaint deserved to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC? - HELD THAT - A perusal of the plaint shows that there is reference to an order dated 16.8.2017, passed by the competent Court in the inventory proceedings wherein the suit property came to be allotted to the respondent nos. 1 and 2. It is then stated that when the said respondents approached the competent authority for mutation of their names in respect of the suit property on the strength of the order passed in the Inventory proceedings, they came to know that the sale deed dated 29.3.1993 consisted of the name, not only of the mother of the respondent no. 1 as purchaser, but also the name of the father/father in law of the original defendants which led to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to approach the Court by filing the suit for declaration and consequential reliefs. It is specifically stated in the plaint that the cause of action arose in September 2017, after the order dated 16.8.2017 was passed in the Inventory proceedings. It is significant that the statement made in the plaint indicates that cause of action arose in September 2017 and that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 became aware about the existence of the name of the father/father in law of the original defendants in the sale deed dated 29.3.1993, only at the stage when they approached the competent authority for mutation of their names in respect of the suit property. When the pleadings in paragraphs 7 and 8 are read in conjunction with the contents of the entire plaint, it appears that the aspect as to whether the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were all along aware about the details of the sale deed dated 29.3.1993 and whether their claim of accrual of cause of action in September 2017, is correct or not, are matters that would need evidence and trial. At this stage, it would be inappropriate to jump to the conclusion that statements made in paragraphs 7 and 8 would be enough to demonstrate that the plaint itself deserved to be rejected, as being barred under the provisions of the said Act. In any case, the question as to whether the suit is hit by Section 4 of the aforesaid act would have to be decided only after sufficient material is brought on record by way of evidence to demonstrate that the ingredients of Section 4 read with Section 9A of the aforesaid Act are satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The reliefs sought in the prayer clause are relatable to the pleadings made on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the context of the inventory proceedings and the right claimed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of inheritance. The approach adopted by the Court below cannot be found fault with and that the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants require to be tested by way of trial and by allowing the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective stands.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of plaint under Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act and Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.

Analysis:
The Revision Application challenged the rejection of the plaint by the Court of Civil Judge, Mapusa, Goa, under the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act and Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The respondents filed a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs related to a property transaction. The applicants contended that the suit was barred by law due to provisions of the Benami Transactions Act, as the sale transaction was executed in one name but consideration was provided by another. The Court examined the pleadings and concluded that the suit was not solely based on the sale deed but also on other factors like inventory proceedings and a Will. The Court rejected the contention of the applicants, stating that more evidence was needed to determine if the Act applied.

The applicants argued that paragraphs in the plaint clearly showed violation of the Benami Transactions Act, emphasizing that the consideration was provided by one party, yet the property was in another's name. They claimed that the reference to inventory proceedings did not negate this violation. On the other hand, the respondents highlighted the sequence of events leading to the suit, stating that the Act did not apply as the property was acquired through inheritance and not solely based on the sale deed. The Court analyzed the pleadings, noting the date of cause of action and the need for evidence to establish if the Act's provisions were breached.

The Court found that the rejection of the plaint was premature, as further evidence and trial were necessary to determine if the suit fell under the Benami Transactions Act. It emphasized that the statements in the plaint, when read in conjunction with other details, did not conclusively prove a violation of the Act. The Court upheld the decision of the lower Court, stating that the contentions of the applicants needed to be tested through trial and evidence presentation. Ultimately, the Revision Application was dismissed for lack of merit, highlighting the need for a thorough examination through trial to ascertain the applicability of the Benami Transactions Act.