TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Petitioner being R.F.A. No.100023/2016, and confirming an order dated 16th November 2015, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosapete, allowing the application being I.A. No.5/2015 filed by the Respondent and rejecting the plaint in the suit being O.S. No.556 of 2014, filed by the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner filed the said suit being O.S. No.556 of 2014 in the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Hosapete, against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 [hereinafter referred to as the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2] praying, inter alia, for a declaration that the apparent joint right and possession of the Defendant No.1, of the suit premises, is null and void and also an injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n provided, or paid by, another person; and (b) the property is held for the immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect, of the person who has provided the consideration, except when the property is held by- (i) a Karta, or a member of a Hindu undivided family, as the case may be, and the property is held for his benefit or benefit of other members in the family and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid out of the known sources of the Hindu undivided family; (ii) a person standing in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of another person towards whom he stands in such capacity and includes a trustee, executor, partner, director of a company, a depository or a participant as an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g in force,- (i) consideration for such property has been provided by the person to whom possession of property has been allowed but the person who has granted possession thereof continues to hold ownership of such property; (ii) stamp duty on such transaction or arrangement has been paid; and (iii) the contract has been registered." 6. Section 3 of the Act of 1988 prohibits Benami Transactions and makes the same punishable with imprisonment as well as fine. Section 4 of the Act of 1988 provides as follows: "4. Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami. -(1) No suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion restraining me and defendant 2 not to interfere with the so-called exclusive sole ownership of the plaintiff and his joint family of the suit properties. 3. In the plaint, plaintiff is claiming that the suit property belongs exclusively to him and his family although the suit property has been purchased and standing in my name and that of the defendant 2. In other words, plaintiff is contending that I am only a name-lender. The said contention of the plaintiff is in the nature of benami transaction which is prohibited by the Benami Prohibition Act. Plaintiff cannot claim such a right and he cannot maintain the present suit on the said claim. 4. As the claim of the plaintiff in the plaint prohibited by the Benami Prohib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions. ii) The other aspect in the plaint that the 1st defendant's deal with the minor defendant No.2 being void with respect to his share, even if any, is under totally a different legal position, distinct and separate from Benami Prohibition Act. Iii) The clear position under Section 45 of T.P. Act that, the transferee holds right in proportion to the funds supplied by them individually and the plaint averments making it clear that no fund was supplied by the 1st defendant makes his right "nil" and this position under T.P. Act is not taken away by the Benami Prohibition Act. 4. All the above said aspects being yet to be proved and set up in a final evidence, the plaint cannot be simply rejected on its bare averme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n reading of the plaint, it is clearly inferable that the plaintiff had asserted the properties as joint family properties is not correct. That was not the case, made out in the plaint. 16. It is true, as argued by Colonel Balasubramanian, that a plaint can be rejected on consideration of the averments in the plaint, but not the allegations made by the Defendant in defence. 17. The High Court has in its judgment and order impugned before us, discussed the plaint in detail, paragraph-wise. The plaintiff claims to have made investments in the suit properties purchased in the name of the Defendants. As observed by the High Court, it is not even the case of the plaintiff that joint family funds have been invested in the property. Rather i....