9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herself as the sister of applicant/defendant No. 1 and claims that the agricultural land, described in paras 1 and 2 of the plaint, is recorded in the name of the applicant/defendant No. 1 since the years 1971-1972 and at such point of time the applicant/defendant No. 1 was a minor which makes it clear that the consideration for purchase of suit property was paid by father of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and the defendant. By making such assertion, the plaintiff seeks to draw conclusion that even though the land was recorded in the name of the defendant No. 1 but in a reality, the actual owner is their father and as per the prevailing Muslim Law, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has ownership over the suit property to the extent of 1/6th s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the plaint at the threshold is done in exceptional circumstances as the same has implication of endorsing the ownership over a property. He has also contended that transaction referred to in the plaint occurred in the years 1971 and 1972 whereas the provision under the Act of 1988 has been introduced subsequently which would have no implication to the facts of the present case. 5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, in the considered opinion of this Court, would be proper to appreciate the facts of the case in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Anand Kumar (supra), which will answer both the submissions canvassed by the respondents. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below:-- "7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h v. Urmila Dassi, AIR 2000 SC 2534. In view of the pronunciation of these law by the Apex Court, it is clear that the bar is only with respect to filing of suit or making of a claim in defence only after coming into force of the Act and not in respect of the claim which are made prior to coming into force of the Act. It is also abundantly clear from this that, if a transaction is said to be done prior to coming into force of the Act but the claim is made after coming into force of the Act, based on such a transaction, the bar prescribed under the Act would be applicable." From the perusal of the reproduced portion, it is safe to deduce that the submission of the respondent that, the transaction referred to in the plaint occurred in the ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
