2021 (8) TMI 820 - HC - Benami Property

Dismissal of Civil Revision Petition Upholding Trial Court Decision on Motor Vehicles Act and Benami Transactions Act

S.K.A. Noorjahan Beevi Versus M. Mohammed Jamil and Ors.

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's decision that the suit was not barred under Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act or ... Benami transaction - real owner of bus and route permit - plaintiff purchased the bus and route permit in the name of the first defendant out of love and affection - bar of the suit under Section 4 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Plaintiffs have claimed the relief of declaration that the suit bus and route permit are belonging to them and for permanent injunction originally claimed against the first defendant restraining her from alienating or encumbering the bus and route permit and also restraining her from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the bus by the plaintiffs - Availiability of bar under Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act - HELD THAT:- Plaintiffs have claimed the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 4 from transferring the suit schedule route permit to any third party without the consent of the plaintiffs, by impleading the transport authorities as defendants 2 to 4. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant has filed a petition for withdrawal of her counter claim and the same was allowed and that thereby, the counter claim was permitted to be withdrawn without liberty and consequently, the counter claim of the first defendant was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. The plaintiffs also filed a memo stating that they had impleaded the defendants 2 to 4 as formal parties and as such, the relief claimed against them is given up. It is further evident that since the defendants have not raised any objection, the said memo was ordered to be recorded. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and as rightly observed by the learned Trial Judge, since the relief claimed as against the transport authorities were already given up and the reliefs claimed against the first defendant alone are pending, the question of bar under Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not arise at all. Benami transaction - Available evidence clearly indicates that the case of the plaintiff that the property was purchased by her from and out of the income from the 'B' schedule property is more probable and acceptable and the fact that the mother had contributed funds for the purchase of the property in the name of her son having been proved, the claim of the first plaintiff with reference to 'A' property could not be said to be barred by the provision of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Transaction was between the mother and the son and the mother has claimed that she has purchased the property in the name of her son. In the case on hand, the transaction is also between the mother and the sons but here, the sons are claiming that they have purchased the property in the name of their mother - the plaintiffs had taken a stand that the first defendant/mother is depending on them and she has no other income - as rightly pointed out by the plaintiffs' side, they have been alleging that the transactions were of the year 1997 and 2011 and the suit was laid in the 2013 and as such the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, has no application. As rightly observed by the Trial Court, the issue is not a pure question of law but mixed question of fact and law and the same can be gone into only at the main trail. As not in dispute that the plaintiffs' side witnesses were already examined and when the first defendant's side evidence was in progress, the first defendant has come forward with the above petition. As already pointed out, the suit was filed in the year 2013 and when the trial was at the fag end, she has filed the above petition in the year 2018 for rejecting the plaint. Considering the facts and circumstances, as already observed by the learned Trial Judge, the above petition came to be filed only to drag on the proceedings. The decision of the Trial Court in dismissing the petition for rejection of the plaint cannot be found fault with and this Court is entirely in agreement with the same. Issues Involved:1. Bar under Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Bar under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Bar under Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act:The first issue addressed was whether the suit was barred under Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 94 states, 'No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to the grant of a permit under this Act, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the duly constituted authorities under this Act with regard to the grant of a permit, shall be entertained by any Civil Court.'The court observed that the plaintiffs had initially claimed a relief of permanent injunction against the transport authorities (defendants 2 to 4) from transferring the route permit. However, during the proceedings, the plaintiffs filed a memo giving up the relief claimed against the transport authorities, which was recorded as there were no objections from the defendants. Consequently, the court concluded that since the relief against the transport authorities was given up, and the claims against the first defendant alone were pending, the question of bar under Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act did not arise.2. Bar under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988:The second issue was whether the suit was barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The plaintiffs amended the plaint to include a declaration that the bus and route permit belonged to them and sought a permanent injunction against the first defendant from alienating or interfering with the bus and route permit. They claimed that they had purchased the bus and route permit in the name of their mother (the first defendant) out of love and affection, asserting that the first defendant had no independent income and was dependent on them.The first defendant contended that the bus and permit belonged to her and that the plaintiffs were merely permissive occupiers. She argued that the suit was barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, which prohibits claims of title over property held benami.The court referred to several precedents, including judgments from the Supreme Court and the High Court, to analyze the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act. It noted that the transactions in question were between the mother and her sons, and the plaintiffs claimed that the first defendant was dependent on them. The court also highlighted that the transactions occurred in 1997 and 2011, while the suit was filed in 2013, indicating that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act did not apply retrospectively.The court further referenced a judgment by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subramanian, which clarified that after the 2016 amendment, the exemptions under Section 4 were removed, but the transactions among coparceners and fiduciary relationships were initially exempted. The court concluded that the issue was a mixed question of fact and law, which could only be determined after a detailed trial.Given that the plaintiffs' witnesses were already examined and the trial was at an advanced stage when the first defendant filed the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint, the court found that the petition was likely filed to delay the proceedings. The court agreed with the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the petition for rejection of the plaint, finding no fault in it.Conclusion:The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the Trial Court's decision, concluding that the suit was not barred under Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act or Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.