Land Ownership Appeals Dismissed Under Benami Act; Possession Granted to M. D. Jain

The appeals filed by Narinder Kumar and others seeking specific performance and declaration of ownership were dismissed due to the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, which barred their claims. On the other hand, the appeal filed by M. D. Jain seeking possession of the disputed property was allowed. The court ruled in favor of M. D. Jain, granting him possession of the land.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Specific performance of the agreement dated September 7, 1967.
2. Declaration of ownership by virtue of the sale deed dated October 13, 1976.
3. Mandatory injunction and possession of the land.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Specific Performance of the Agreement Dated September 7, 1967:
Narinder Kumar and others filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated September 7, 1967, read with previous agreements dated November 23, 1964, and December 26, 1965, and an undertaking given by M. D. Jain in his affidavit dated July 25, 1969. They claimed to be in possession of the suit land and alleged that M. D. Jain was merely a benamidar. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appeal was considered in light of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, which was held to be retrospective by the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare. The Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 4 of the Act barred any suit, claim, or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami. Consequently, Narinder Kumar and others' claim for specific performance was dismissed as they were debarred from making claims on the ground that M. D. Jain was a benamidar.

2. Declaration of Ownership by Virtue of the Sale Deed Dated October 13, 1976:
Narinder Kumar and others also filed a suit for declaration that they were the real owners of the land by virtue of the sale deed dated October 13, 1976, executed by Phool Chand Jain, claiming that M. D. Jain was a benamidar. This suit was similarly dismissed by the trial court. The appeal was dismissed on the same grounds as the specific performance suit, with the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, barring their claim. The Supreme Court's decision in Mithilesh Kumari's case rendered their claim unenforceable, as the Act removed the protection previously afforded to real owners in benami transactions.

3. Mandatory Injunction and Possession of the Land:
M. D. Jain filed a suit for a mandatory injunction, later amended to seek possession of the land under the rice mill and the piece of land where Narinder Kumar and others were drying paddy. The trial court dismissed this suit as well. On appeal, the court examined whether Narinder Kumar and others were in possession as licensees or lessees. The previous agreements indicated they were lessees of the land under the rice mill and a northern plot. However, the disputed land was towards the south of the rice mill, which they were permitted to use by M. D. Jain. The agreement dated September 7, 1967, extinguished any previous lease agreements, and Narinder Kumar and others' defence that M. D. Jain was a benamidar was not available due to the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Consequently, M. D. Jain and others were deemed the rightful owners and entitled to possession of the disputed property. The appeal by M. D. Jain was allowed, and the trial court's judgment was set aside, decreeing possession in favor of M. D. Jain.

Conclusion:
R.F.A. Nos. 72 and 73 of 1986, filed by Narinder Kumar and others, were dismissed based on the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, which barred their claims. R.F.A. No. 74 of 1986, filed by M. D. Jain, was allowed, granting him possession of the disputed property. The parties were left to bear their own costs in these appeals.

---