Court affirms rejection of pleading amendments on Benami Property Act grounds.

The Court upheld the trial court's decision to reject proposed amendments in pleadings, citing their bar under Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The amendments, related to property purchase and ownership, were deemed impermissible as the property was in the plaintiff's name. The petitioners' argument for just decision-making through amendments was dismissed, and the petition was ultimately rejected on different grounds, affirming the trial court's ruling on the inadmissibility of the proposed amendments.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of proposed amendments in pleadings by the trial court and the applicability of Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Proposed Amendments in Pleadings:
The petitioners filed a petition under Article 227 against the order of the Civil Judge partially allowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The proposed amendments included facts related to the purchase of property in the name of the plaintiff's husband and subsequent allotment to her son. The trial court rejected these pleadings as they were taken after the commencement of the trial and were based on pre-existing facts.

Contentions of the Parties:
The petitioners argued that the proposed amendments were necessary for a just decision, while the respondents opposed the petition, citing that the amendments were barred by law. They referred to Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, stating that since the property was in the plaintiff's name, she is presumed to be the owner, and any defense based on fiduciary relationship is not permissible.

Legal Principles and Precedents:
The judgment referred to the Supreme Court case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, emphasizing the principles related to amendments of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The Court highlighted that all necessary amendments should be allowed for determining the real controversy, avoiding injustice, and preventing multiplicity of proceedings.

Application of Section 4 of the Act:
Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 prohibits the right to recover property held benami and disallows any defense based on such property. The proposed amendment suggesting that the property was purchased by the plaintiff's husband, not her, was deemed impermissible under this section.

Court's Decision:
The Court concluded that the trial court did not err in rejecting the proposed amendments as they were barred by law. Since the jurisdictional error was not committed by the trial court, the petition was dismissed on different grounds, upholding the decision of the trial court regarding the rejection of the proposed amendments.

---