TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1871
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants submits that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in answering the issue in negative holding that the issue No. 14 relates to mixed question of law and fact and it will be decided after recording the evidence of the parties and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, as the said question is a pure question of law. 3. Mr. Rajkumar Pali, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2/plaintiffs, on the other hand, would support the impugned order and submits that the trial Court is absolutely justified in answering the issue in negative as the issue No. 14 relates to mixed question of law and fact and can be decided only after recording the evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of 1988 or after coming into force of the Act of 1988, such suit would be barred by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 4(1) of the Act of 1988. 8. The question as to whether bar would be applicable in suits which are filed after coming into force of the Act of 1988 has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Duvuru Jaya Mohana Reddy and another v. Alluru Nagi Reddy and others AIR 1994 SC 1647 and it has been held that Section 4(1) of the Act of 1988 would apply to proceedings pending on the date of the commencement of the Act and the provisions were held applicable to an appeal that was pending. Similar is the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Prabodh Chandra Ghosh v. Urmila Dassi AIR 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dom has not expressly made Section 4 retrospective. Then to imply by necessary implication that Section 4 would have retrospective effect and would cover pending litigations filed prior to coming into force of the section would amount to taking a view which would run counter to the legislative scheme and intent projected by various provisions of the Act to which we have referred earlier. It is, however, true as held by the Division Bench that on the express language of Section 4(1) any right inhering in the real owner in respect of any property held benami would get effaced once Section 4(1) operated, even if such transaction had been entered into prior to the coming into operation of Section 4(1), and hence-after Section 4(1) applied no su....