Court affirms dismissal of application in refund suit, clarifies Benami transaction interpretation.

The court affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a suit for refund of advance amount paid, claiming it was not barred under the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act. The court held that receiving financial help from the respondent's deceased father for the sale consideration did not constitute a Benami transaction under the Act, emphasizing that the Act's definition should not be narrowly construed based on the source of funds. The petitioner's revision under Section 115 of CPC was dismissed by the court.

---

---

Issues:
- Application filed under Order XIV Rule 2 read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed by trial court.
- Suit for refund of advance amount paid, claimed to be barred under Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act.
- Argument based on Supreme Court and High Court judgments regarding money as property.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a revision under Section 115 of CPC against the trial court's order dismissing their application under Order XIV Rule 2 read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC in Civil Suit No.4B/2014. The respondents had initiated a suit seeking a refund of the advance amount paid to the petitioner. The crux of the petitioner's argument was that since the money for the advance was provided by the respondent's deceased father, the suit should be barred under the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act. The petitioner relied on various judgments, including one from the Supreme Court, to support their contention that money is also considered property.

Upon hearing both parties, the court examined the plaint and noted that it only mentioned the deceased father providing the money to the respondent for entering into the agreement to sell. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment to emphasize that the Benami Act defines a transaction where property is transferred for consideration paid or provided by another person. The court highlighted that the word "provided" in the Act should not be narrowly construed based on the source of funds used for the transaction. In this case, the court held that merely receiving financial help from the father for the sale consideration did not make the agreement a Benami transaction under the Act.

Consequently, the court concluded that the trial court did not err in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, the court affirmed the order passed by the 17th Additional District Judge, Gwalior, and dismissed the petitioner's revision.

---