Appellant's Benami Transaction Claim Dismissed Under Section 66; Adverse Possession Argument Denied

The appellant's claim based on a benami transaction from 1914 was dismissed by the High Court citing Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which protects certified purchasers and their successors. The appellant's argument for a claim under the second subsection of Section 66 was rejected, as it pertains to creditors, not transferees. Additionally, the alternative claim of adverse possession was denied due to insufficient pleading and lack of evidence. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and ordering costs against the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against High Court judgment
- Benami transaction of 1914
- Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- Claim by transferee against real owner
- Adverse possession claim
- Proper plea requirement for adverse possession

Analysis:

The appellant, son of Syed Aulad Ali, filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of properties, alleging a benami purchase by his father in 1914. The High Court reversed the lower courts' judgments, citing Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which bars suits against persons claiming title under a certified purchase. The appellant's claim based on the benami transaction was dismissed, as the section protects not only the certified purchaser but also those claiming through them.

The appellant contended that a suit could proceed under the second subsection of Section 66, allowing a third party to claim against the property sold to the certified purchaser. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the provision refers to claims of creditors, not transferees. Allowing such claims would undermine the law's intent, rendering the first subsection ineffective. Consequently, the appellant's suit was deemed barred under Section 66.

Additionally, the appellant raised an alternative claim of adverse possession, asserting that the title of the original owner was extinguished due to long possession. The High Court rejected this claim, noting that it was not raised in the initial suit. The Court emphasized that adverse possession must be adequately proven, requiring a clear plea specifying when possession turned adverse. Without such evidence, mere references to long possession in the relief clause were insufficient to establish adverse possession.

The Court highlighted that each case must be assessed based on the allegations in the plaint. Since the appellant failed to properly plead adverse possession, the High Court's decision to dismiss the claim was upheld. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment and ordering costs to be paid by the appellant.

---