9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Benami Transactions Act, 1988 or not, has to be decided in the main suit, only after leading evidence by both sides. The question whether the suit is barred by limitation or not, also cannot be decided unless and until full-fledged trial is conducted in the main suit. Similar issues regarding properties between the same parties herein came up before this Court earlier [ 2018 (7) TMI 2091 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] as disposed of by recording the consent of the parties to direct the trial Court to decide the suits within one year from the date of receipt of the copy of said order, by giving opportunity to both parties. In the present case, the plaintiff/Director and defendant No.2 are siblings and defendant No.1 is the daughter of def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 4 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, which is renamed as Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. Therefore, suit is liable to be rejected as it is not maintainable. Moreover, Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code prohibits trying the civil suit which is barred by Statute, therefore, the suit itself is liable to be rejected. Thus, the claim sought by the respondent/plaintiff cannot be granted. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed for rejection of suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. 4. To decide the present issue, it is necessary to reproduce Section 2 (9)(A)(b)(iv) of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, which contains an exception t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selling the property the sale consideration amount was received by the plaintiff company. The defendant No.1 also not raising any objection executed the sale deed in favour of the said purchaser. 18. The said facts clearly establishes that the plaint schedule properties were purchased by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant No.1 as binamidar. 19. Since the defendant No.1 is close relative of the promoter Directors of the plaintiff company, the property was purchased in the name of the defendant No.1. Even though the property was purchased in the name of the defendant No.1 as benamidar : i. The plaintiff company paid the entire sale consideration; ii. The plaintiff is in possession of the original title deeds; iii. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suit is hit by Sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, 1988 or not, has to be decided in the main suit, only after leading evidence by both sides. 7. Further, the limitation aspect is explained in paragraph 33 of the plaint. The question whether the suit is barred by limitation or not, also cannot be decided unless and until full-fledged trial is conducted in the main suit. 8. The similar issues regarding properties between the same parties herein came up before this Court earlier in C.R.P.Nos.1625, 1638, 1744 and 2080 of 2017. The said revision petitions were disposed of vide order dated 20th July 2018 by recording the consent of the parties to direct the trial Court to decide the suits within one year from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
