2025 (9) TMI 149 - HC - Benami Property

Revision dismissed; Order VII Rule 11 application refused as plaint not barred by Sections 3-4 of Benami Act

Smt Seema Sharma Versus Devendra Mehndi Ratta And Another And Smt Anuradha Mehndi Ratta@ Shikha Versus Devendra Mehndi Rattam And Another

Smt Seema Sharma Versus Devendra Mehndi Ratta And Another And Smt Anuradha Mehndi Ratta@ Shikha Versus Devendra Mehndi Rattam And Another - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on the ground that the suit is barred by Sections 3 and 4 of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, where the plaint alleges that the property was purchased by the plaintiff in joint names but the entire consideration was paid by the plaintiff. 2. Whether the exception in Section 2(9)(iii) (definition of 'benami transaction') excluding property held in the name of spouse or child, where consideration is from known sources of the individual, applies on the face of the plaint to preclude application of the benami prohibition at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. where Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Act are invoked Legal framework: Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. permits rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from the plaint to be barred by any law. Sections 3 and 4 of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 prohibit entering into benami transactions and bar suits or claims by a person claiming to be the real owner in respect of property held benami. Precedent Treatment: No prior decisions or authorities were relied upon or cited by the Court in the impugned order; consequently, no precedent was followed, distinguished or overruled in the reasoning. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court applied the settled principle that an application under Order VII Rule 11 is to be decided on the averments of the plaint alone. On the plaint allegations, it is pleaded that the plaintiff purchased the land at public auction, deposited the auction money, execution and registration expenses, and construction expenses; although the plot was in joint names (plaintiff and spouse), the spouse was a benami, having provided no consideration and lacking means to purchase. The Court found that these plaint averments, if accepted, bring the matter within the exception in the definition of 'benami transaction' (see Issue 2) and therefore the suit is not, on its face, barred by the Benami Act. The trial court's rejection of the Order VII Rule 11 application was thereby upheld because the plaint did not prima facie disclose a cause barred by Sections 3 and 4. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where plaint allegations, taken at their face value, show that the consideration was paid by the plaintiff and the co-owner/spouse furnished no consideration, the plaint is not prima facie barred by the Benami Act and cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. Obiter - Observations that proof at trial may show otherwise and that defendants remain free to lead evidence are ancillary but operative guidance on procedure at trial. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the trial court correctly refused to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. because, on the pleadings alone, the Benami Act did not bar the suit. Issue 2: Application of Section 2(9)(iii) exception (property in name of spouse/child from known sources) at the pleading stage Legal framework: Section 2(9) defines 'benami transaction' and Section 2(9)(iii) expressly excepts transactions where property is held in the name of spouse or child and consideration is from known sources of the individual. Precedent Treatment: No authority was invoked; the Court relied on statutory text and the factual averments of the plaint to determine applicability. Interpretation and reasoning: The plaint asserts that the entire consideration was provided by the plaintiff and that the spouse had no means and did not contribute. Given that the statutory exception covers property held in the name of spouse when consideration is from known sources of the individual, the Court reasoned that the exception is applicable on the plaint's averments. Because Order VII Rule 11 requires examination only of the plaint, the presence of a pleaded statutory exception negates a prima facie bar under the Benami Act at that interlocutory stage. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A statutory exception to the definition of benami liabilities (Section 2(9)(iii)) will be applied at the Order VII Rule 11 stage if the plaint, on its face, pleads facts bringing the transaction within that exception. Obiter - The Court's caution that the pleading remains subject to proof at trial and that the exception's factual veracity may be contested by defendants. Conclusions: The Court concluded that sub-section 9(iii) of Section 2 applies on the plaint allegations and thus the suit cannot be dismissed at the pleading stage as barred by the Benami Act; issues of fact regarding contribution and source of funds are to be determined at trial. Auxiliary procedural observations The Court reiterated the principle that rejection under Order VII Rule 11 does not preclude defendants from contesting the plaint's averments at trial; plaintiffs must still prove the pleaded facts by cogent evidence and defendants may disprove them by leading evidence at the final disposal of the suit.