9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C and nothing more nothing less. Of course, the contention of Sri.Narendra Kumar is that the suit itself is not maintainable before the Trial Court and that it ought to have been transferred to the competent Adjudicating Authority under the Act but it does not, in any manner, impact the application for amendment sought for by the petitioner because, even if the suit is found liable to be transferred to the Adjudicating Authority, then the said authority would have to consider it on its merits, before moving forward. This aspect has also not been considered by the Trial Court and for this reason, cannot find in favour of the impugned order. Ext.P4 interim application filed by the petitioner, requires to be reconsidered by the Trial Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, Sri.Narendra Kumar, began by saying that the tenor of the suit filed by the petitioner refers to an alleged transaction in the nature of a 'benami property transaction', which is prohibited under the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). He says that therefore, when the plaint contains averments indicating such a transaction, the Trial Court would obtain no jurisdiction to consider the same on account of the specific stipulations in Sections 45 and 65 of the Act, which mandates that the suit itself be transferred to the competent Adjudicating Authority under it. 4. After asserting as afore, Sri.Narendra Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 2(9)(A)(iv)-whereby, a transaction or an arrangement is stipulated to be not a 'benami transaction', provided it is made in the name of the person and his brother or sister with both their names jointly occurring in any document. According to the petitioner, since Ext.P3 Will left by their father mentioned his and his now deceased sister's name, the document which is now sought to be invalidated by him through the suit-being a settlement deed executed by the 1st respondent, in the name of his wife, the 2nd respondent, consequent to his claim that he has inherited the property from his late mother (who is the sister of the petitioner)- would not be hit by the rigour of the Act. 8. There can be no doubt that when the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Of course, the contention of Sri.Narendra Kumar is that the suit itself is not maintainable before the Trial Court and that it ought to have been transferred to the competent Adjudicating Authority under the Act. However, this argument does not, in any manner, impact the application for amendment sought for by the petitioner because, even if the suit is found liable to be transferred to the Adjudicating Authority, then the said authority would have to consider it on its merits, before moving forward. This aspect has also not been considered by the Trial Court and for this reason, I cannot find in favour of the impugned order. 11. Resultantly, I am of the firm opinion that Ext.P4 interim application, namely, I.A.No.913/2017, filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
