Court Upholds Possession & Injunction Judgments, Benami Defence Barred.

The High Court upheld the judgments and decrees in favor of the respondent/plaintiff for possession and injunction, dismissing the appeals. It held that the appellant's defences of benami were barred by Section 4(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The court found that the property was not benami as the appellant failed to provide evidence that the funds for the property were provided by their father.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent/plaintiff was the actual owner of the property or merely a benamidar.
2. Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 on the defences raised by the appellant/defendant.

Summary:

Issue 1: Ownership vs. Benamidar
The respondent/plaintiff filed suits for possession and injunction claiming ownership of the suit property. The appellant/defendant No. 1 contended that the respondent was not the real owner but merely a benamidar, with the actual owner being their father, late Sh. Jivan Singh. The trial court, despite the plea of bar under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, chose to give findings on merits, concluding that the property was not benami. The trial court noted that no document was proved by the appellant showing that the funds for the property were provided by the father.

Issue 2: Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
The suits were filed before the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 came into force, but the written statements taking up the plea of benami were filed after the Act's promulgation. Section 4(2) of the Act prohibits any defence alleging that a property is held benami. The Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal Reddy v. P. Chandrasekharan clarified that defences of benami taken after the Act's enforcement are barred. The High Court held that the defences raised by the appellant were hit by Section 4(2) of the Act, rendering any further examination on merits unnecessary.

Conclusion:
The High Court sustained the judgments and decrees for possession and injunction in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, dismissing the appeals and holding that the defences of benami were barred by Section 4(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. No other issues were urged or pressed. The appeals were dismissed with parties bearing their own costs.

---