2017 (2) TMI 1478 - HC - Benami Property

Court affirms dismissal of suit under Benami Transaction Act.

SRI NIMBANNA Versus SRI SHIVANANDA KINNAL, SRI S. DODDA NINGAPPA

The court upheld the trial court's decision to reject the plaintiff's suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, finding it barred by the Benami Transaction ... Prohibition of benami transactions - Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami - Suit barred by the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988? - HELD THAT:- Section 3 contemplates prohibition of benami transactions, whereas Section 4 contemplates prohibition of the right to recover property held benami. This transaction, if examined in the light of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, what could be inferred is the plaintiff had invested in the transaction as a benami. Order VIIRule 11(1)(d) of CPC provides that where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected. The averments of the plaint itself clearly establishes that the suit is barred by the Act. Thus, the rejection of the plaint by the trial Court cannot be found fault with. The judgments referred to by the appellant are rendered in a different context which are not applicable to the facts of the present case. From plaint averments read with under Order 7 Rule 11(1)(d) of CPC and the provisions of the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiff is hit by the provisions of the Act and requires to be rejected as barred by the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act,1988. The plaint averments exclusively reflects that the suit is barred by law. There is no prohibition in rejecting the plaint at the threshold sans going into the ordeal of trial. Issues Involved:1. Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.2. Whether the suit is barred by the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Justification of Rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC:The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the joint right and possession of defendant No.1 in the schedule properties were null and void, and to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's exclusive ownership. Defendant No.1 filed IA-V under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, alleging that the suit was barred by the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The trial court allowed IA-V and rejected the plaint. The plaintiff contended that the trial court erred by relying only on specific paragraphs of the plaint and not considering the entire averments. It was argued that the application for rejection of the plaint should be considered on the merits of the suit, requiring evidence, and that the trial court should not have rejected the plaint based on assumptions. The plaintiff also argued that defendant No.1, being a legal advisor, held a fiduciary capacity exempting the applicability of the Act.2. Barred by the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988:The plaintiff claimed that the suit properties were purchased in the names of the defendants, which amounted to a benami transaction prohibited by law. The trial court concluded that the plaint disclosed a benami transaction, thus barred by the Act. The plaintiff's averments indicated that the properties were purchased with his hard-earned money and not with joint family funds. The plaintiff asserted that defendant No.1 was included in the sale deeds only in a fiduciary capacity as a legal advisor, not as an owner. The court examined Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, which prohibit benami transactions and the right to recover property held benami. The court found that the transaction was benami, as the plaintiff invested in the property but it was held in the names of the defendants. The court held that the suit was barred by the Act, and the rejection of the plaint was justified.Conclusion:The court concluded that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and the trial court's rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was justified. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment and decree.