9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95 (1) TMI 67 - SUPREME Court] has held that the said Act and the Ordinance were not retrospective in operation and the Act did not apply to pending suits which had already been filed and entertained prior to the coming into force of section 4 of the Act. This being so, the High Court in the present case fell in error in setting aside the decision of the executing court and in holding that the right of the appellant to recover possession bid come to an end by virtue of the said Act. Thus the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court under, appeal is set aside - C.A. 1782 OF 1989 - - - Dated:- 14-12-1999 - Judge(s) : B. N. KIRPAL., R. P. SETHI ORDER There is more than one reason for allowing this appeal. It appears th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s entitled to recover possession of the plaint schedule properties from the defendants in these suits. In our view, this is a case where section 82 of the Indian Trusts Act squarely applies." A special leave petition filed by the respondent was dismissed by this court on April 7, 1988. The appellant then filed an execution application being E. P. No. 90 of 1988, before the trial court. Before the said application was disposed of, on May 19, 1988, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988, was promulgated, Based on this Ordinance, objections were filed by the respondent to the effect that the decree could not be executed in view of the provisions of the said Ordinance. The executing court disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . That apart, this court in R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan [1995] 213 ITR 340, has held that the said Act and the Ordinance were not retrospective in operation and the Act did not apply to pending suits which had already been filed and entertained prior to the coming into force of section 4 of the Act. This being so, the High Court in the present case fell in error in setting aside the decision of the executing court and in holding that the right of the appellant to recover possession bid come to an end by virtue of the said Act. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court (see [1989] 180 ITR 503) under, appeal dated August 2, 1988, is set aside, with costs throughout. By order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
