TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 11 of the CPC. 2. A civil suit was filed by the respondents praying for reliefs of declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to nazool plot No.3/8 measuring 5082 sq.ft., on the ground that the father of the plaintiffs had purchased this property benami in the name of Savitri Devi on 6.10.1961. The suit is being contested by the petitioners. The application was moved by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the suit is not maintainable under the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988'), which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 3. It is submitted by Senior Counsel for the petitioners that clearly according to the pleadings of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., a trustee, a person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of a trustee with respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and condor which it requires; a person having the duty, created by his undertaking, to act primarily for another's benefit in matters connected with such undertaking. Also more specifically, in a statute, a guardian, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, conservator or any person acting in any fiduciary capacity for any person, trust or estate. 5. It is submitted in the case of Vishram alias Prasad Govekar and Ors. vs. Sudesh Govekar (D) by Lrs. and Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 583, it was held that such a kind of dispute cannot be drawn into a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clearly covered by the exception under Section 4(3) of the Act, 1988. The suit property was purchased benami, which is in the name of Savitri Devi for the purposes of holding the same for joint family property. It is submitted that on the reverse page of the sale deed dated 6.10.1961, it is clearly mentioned that the whole amount of consideration was paid by father of Savitri Devi, therefore, the possession of Savitri Devi in holding that property was that of a trustee for the joint family property. 7. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar vs. Babulal since deceased through Legal Representatives and Others, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 367, in which it was held that when the controversy has aris....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is totally missing. 9. The prayer under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of plaint has to be considered only on the basis of the plaint averments and nothing else. The plaint averments as disclosed herein-above clearly shows that nothing has been pleaded to show that the suit property was held by Savitri Devi as coparcener of a Hindu undivided family and the same was for the benefit of all the coparceners of the Joint Hindu family. This being the position on the basis of the facts and pleadings in the plaint, there is no material to draw conclusion that the suit filed by the respondents is covered under the exception as provided under Section 4 (3) of the Act, 1988. This being the conclusion, the suit filed by the respondents ....