2018 (8) TMI 1931

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....argued that the learned trial Court has ignored the fact that the suit itself is not maintainable as there is a prohibition to entertain the suit under Sections 3 and 4 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, which is renamed as Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. Therefore, suit is liable to be rejected as it is not maintainable. Moreover, Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code prohibits trying the civil suit which is barred by Statute, therefore, the suit itself is liable to be rejected. Thus, the claim sought by the respondent/plaintiff cannot be granted. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed for rejection of suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. 4. To decide....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ands and after selling the same the consideration was received by the plaintiff. 17. Since the plaintiff purchased the said property in the name of defendant No.1 as binamidar on selling the property the sale consideration amount was received by the plaintiff company. The defendant No.1 also not raising any objection executed the sale deed in favour of the said purchaser. 18. The said facts clearly establishes that the plaint schedule properties were purchased by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant No.1 as binamidar. 19. Since the defendant No.1 is close relative of the promoter Directors of the plaintiff company, the property was purchased in the name of the defendant No.1. Even though the property was pur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ll sell away the plaint schedule property as the same in their name." 6. In view of the averments made in the plaint and in view of Section 2 (9)(A)(b)(iv) of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, whether the suit is hit by Sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, 1988 or not, has to be decided in the main suit, only after leading evidence by both sides. 7. Further, the limitation aspect is explained in paragraph 33 of the plaint. The question whether the suit is barred by limitation or not, also cannot be decided unless and until full-fledged trial is conducted in the main suit. 8. The similar issues regarding properties between the same parties herein came up before this Court earlier i....