Registered title and benami defence: Court treated the oral family settlement plea as a moonshine defence and granted injunction relief.

Registered title documents prevailed over the defendant's plea of benami ownership and an alleged oral family settlement. The Court held that the defence was inconsistent with the admitted registered gift deed and conveyance deed, unsupported by any written instrument, and barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988; it therefore raised no real triable issue and amounted to a moonshine defence fit for judgment on admission. As the defendant had not pursued any independent proceeding to prove the alleged settlement, the plaintiff was entitled to relief under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The suit was decreed for mandatory and permanent injunction, while monetary relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC in view of the defendant's plea of benami ownership and oral family settlement, and whether the defendant's defence could defeat the registered gift deed and conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff.

Analysis: The suit property stood covered by a registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff, followed by a registered conveyance deed, and those title documents remained unchallenged. The defendant's plea that the property belonged to him by reason of an oral family settlement and contribution from family funds was found to be inconsistent with the pleaded and admitted documents. The defence was treated as barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and as unsupported by any written instrument capable of varying the effect of the registered documents. The Court also held that the defendant had not pursued any independent proceeding to establish the alleged family settlement and that the defence raised no real triable issue. In these circumstances, the defence was characterized as a moonshine defence and the matter was fit for judgment on admission. The claim for recovery of possession, however, could not be granted for want of evidence as to monetary relief, and the Court also noted the limited effect of the plaintiff's alleged dispossession if any as a licensee.

Conclusion: The application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was allowed and the suit was decreed for mandatory and permanent injunction, while the monetary relief was refused.

---