Ad valorem court-fee and Benami Act bar apply when a partition suit challenges a stranger's title and benami ownership claim.

A partition plaint that directly impeaches the title of a stranger to the coparcenary is treated in substance as a suit for declaration of title against that person and attracts ad valorem court-fee on the market value of the disputed property. Where the claim concerns property standing in the name of a coparcener's wife and is asserted as benami ownership, Section 3(2) does not save the transaction on the stated facts, and Section 4 bars enforcement of the real owner's right even in pending proceedings. The article therefore notes that such benami claims are legally barred, while ordinary partition relief among coparceners may still survive for other items.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a partition suit which impeaches the title of a person shown as a stranger to the coparcenary requires payment of ad valorem court-fee on the market value of the disputed properties. (ii) Whether the claim relating to properties standing in the name of the wife of a coparcener was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Issue (i): Whether a partition suit which impeaches the title of a person shown as a stranger to the coparcenary requires payment of ad valorem court-fee on the market value of the disputed properties.

Analysis: The plaint did not merely seek partition among coparceners. It specifically asserted that the disputed properties standing in the name of defendant No. 2 belonged to the joint family and that she had no right, title or interest in them. Once the title of a non-coparcener was directly challenged, the relief in substance included an adjudication of title against a stranger and was not confined to a simple partition claim. On the substance of the pleading, the suit therefore attracted ad valorem court-fee.

Conclusion: Ad valorem court-fee was payable and the suit was not maintainable as a simple partition suit in respect of the disputed items.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim relating to properties standing in the name of the wife of a coparcener was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Analysis: The judgment treated the impugned claim as one based on benami ownership. Section 3(2) was held inapplicable on the facts because the transaction was not saved merely by the property standing in the name of the wife. The Court further held that the statutory prohibition under Section 4 barred enforcement of any right asserted by the real owner in respect of benami property, and that this bar applied to pending proceedings as well. The claim to the disputed properties was therefore hit by the Act.

Conclusion: The claim in respect of items Nos. (iii) and (iv) was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Final Conclusion: The decree was interfered with only to the extent of the disputed properties standing in the name of defendant No. 2, while the plaintiff's entitlement to partition in items Nos. (i) and (ii) was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a partition plaint directly impeaches the title of a stranger in possession of the disputed property, the suit is in substance one for declaration of title and must bear ad valorem court-fee; and a benami claim not protected by Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is barred by Section 4.

---