TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Prohibition) Act 1988, the suit would be maintainable. Additionally, counsel urged that the defence could not be looked into while deciding on the issue: Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action? 4. We thus proceed our journey by noting the pleadings in the plaint. 5. The plaintiff, Santosh Malik pleaded in the plaint, that she is the daughter of late Dr. Ram Krishan and that the defendants, Maharaj Krishan and Iqbal Krishan are her brothers. She pleaded that Maharaj Krishan obtained a matriculation certificate in the year 1946 and came to Amritsar. Thereafter, in paras 9 to 14 of the plaint, she pleaded as under:- 9. That in 1950, the Rehabilitation Department of Govt. of India, decided to allot houses on hire-purchase basis to eligible refugees according to the size of the family, on a very nominal price of about Rs. 5,000/- out of which initially only a sum of Rs. 2500/- was required to be paid by cash. One house No.B-6, Janpura Extension, New Delhi was allotted to defendant No. 1 as per the decision of the family. 10. That even this small amount was impossible to be paid for purchase of the aforesaid house No.B-6, Jangpura Extension, Ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nitial deposit of Rs. 2,500/- for the purchase of the said house. Out of this amount of Rs. 900/-, a sum of Rs. 450/- was paid by the plaintiff's husband to her, and for the remaining amount, the plaintiff had to dispose of her jewelry. The plaintiff acted most honestly and in good faith, for the welfare of the entire family, as she had been assured by all the family members that in view of her timely substantial contribution, she would be equally co-owner with others of the said property No.B-6, Janpura Extension, New Delhi, and if the said property is sold, she will get her due share, otherwise, she will have her due share with possession of the said property. Without her contribution the house could not have been purchased in 1950. Since the financial position of the family was very weak and Shri Maharaj Krishan remained abroad for a long period of time, the plaintiff's share in the house was not given to her, though assurances were given to her that as and when Shri Maharaj Krishan came to India, she will get her due share. Besides, Shri Maharaj Krishan defendant No. 1's wife and son remained ill intermittently for a long period of time....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith her husband and, on the solemn assurance from her family members, contributed Rs. 900/- for purchase of the house. She pleads, in the fourth sub-para of para 14 of the plaint that besides money contributed by her, her late father Dr. Ram Krishan got adjusted a compensation claim sanctioned to him with respect to property left in Pakistan when the property was purchased. She pleads in para 17 that after the death of her parents the family decided that the plaintiff would be treated as a co-owner of the property. The date, month and year when the family so decided, has not been pleaded. 11. A perusal of the averments in the plaint would show that it is not the case pleaded that late Dr. Ram Krishan, the father of the litigating parties had left behind ancestral properties at the time of partition and in lieu thereof the subject property was allotted and that with the consent of the father it was decided that the allotment would be in the name of defendant No. 1. On the contrary, she had categorically pleaded that the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of India decided to allot houses to refugees. She had pleaded that on the asking of her mother she gave money to defen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts have to be thrown out. 14. Suffice would it be to state that a vague plea sans the particulars thereof, would be no plea in the eyes of law and no issue can be settled between the parties as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Indeed, Rule 2 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure enjoins upon a party to ensure that its pleadings contained a statement in the concise form of material facts. We do not find any material facts so pleaded. 15. That apart, the suit, as drafted is based upon title on the plea that having contributed Rs. 900/- when the property was purchased, and the contribution being on an express assurance that the plaintiff would have a right in the property and thus we concur with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the suit is barred by virtue of Sub-Section 1 of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988. The plea urged that the bar imposed as afore-noted is not available when clause (a) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 4 is attracted, is not available to the appellants since it is not pleaded in the plaint that the person in whose name the property is held is a co-parcener in a Hindu Undivided Family and the property is held ....