2020 (9) TMI 451

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed in issuing Ext.P7 order; and his specific assertion is that the amendments, that were sought to be made, are those which the Trial Court was obligated in law to allow, going by the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short). He thus prays that this Original Petition be allowed and that Ext.P6 be set aside; leading to his application for amendment, namely, I.A.No.913/2017, being allowed. 3. In refutation of the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel, Sri.Mathew John, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, Sri.Narendra Kumar, began by saying that the tenor of the suit filed by the petitioner refers to an alleged transaction in the nature of a 'b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to its full ownership and possession. According to him, even though the sale consideration of the property was paid for by him fully, the registration of the document was made in the name of his deceased sister 'nominally' on account of his love and affection for her and on the specific understanding that the property will remain exclusively his in future. 7. After alleging so, through Ext.P4 interlocutory application the petitioner sought the benefit of the exception available under the Act-which is engraved under Section 2(9)(A)(iv)-whereby, a transaction or an arrangement is stipulated to be not a 'benami transaction', provided it is made in the name of the person and his brother or sister with both their names jointly....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, in fact, gone into the merits of the amendments and has virtually found that the petitioner is not eligible to claim the benefits of the aforementioned exemption under Section 2(9)(A)(iv) of the Act. I am afraid that it was not within the province of the Trial Court to have entered into the merits of the contentions of the petitioner at that stage; and all that it could have considered was whether the amendments were liable to be allowed under the ambit of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and nothing more nothing less. 10. Of course, the contention of Sri.Narendra Kumar is that the suit itself is not maintainable before the Trial Court and that it ought to have been transferred to the competent Adjudicating Authority under the Act. However, ....