9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Civil Revision Application N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt allotment of the suit property in their favour. 3. It is specifically pleaded in the plaint that when the said 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. Thereafter, it was pleaded that the mother of respondent no. 1 i.e. one Lucy Dias had decided to purchase the property, and since the respondent no. 2 was in love with the respondent no. 1 and planned to marry her, he had provided consideration amount for the transaction. It is pleaded that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel appearing for the applicants invited the attention of this Court specifically to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the plaint and strenuously urged that the said paragraphs clearly demonstrated that the suit was hit by Section 4 of the aforesaid Act. The pleading was clear that while sale transaction was executed in the name of Lucy Dias, the consideration thereof was provided by the respondent no. 2 and that now he could not turn around and claim ownership in the property, as it was hit by the provisions of the said Act. It was further submitted that reference to the inventory proceedings in the plaint could not take away the effect of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the plaint and that therefore, the Court below had erred in rejecting the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 10. There is no doubt about the fact that in paragraphs 7 and 8, it is stated that the respondent no. 2 had arranged for an amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
