TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 899
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was not accepted and the application was only partly allowed by giving a direction to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 (original Plaintiffs) to get the suit properly valued from a government certified valuer and to pay requisite Court fees on the same. The applicants are specifically aggrieved by the rejection of their contention that the plaint ought to have been rejected as being barred by the provisions of the aforesaid Act and hence, hit by Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). 2. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed the suit for declaration and consequential reliefs against the applicants and the respondent nos. 3 and 4. It is pleaded in the plaint that the cause of action for filing the suit arose in September 2017....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the plaint had specifically stated that consideration for the aforesaid sale transaction was provided by respondent no. 2, while the transaction was completed in the name of said Lucy Dias, as per Section 4 of the aforesaid Act the suit filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 was barred by law. 5. By the impugned order, the Court below referred to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the applicant and appeared to reach a prima facie conclusion that the transaction may not be covered by exceptions as stated in another provision of the aforesaid Act. But, the Court further discussed the manner in which the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had referred to the inventory proceedings and a Will dated 4.9.1996. Thereupon, the Court concluded that respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the sale transaction pertaining to the suit property and this led to the filing of the suit. The reference to the manner in which the respondent no. 2 provided amount to his mother-in-law Lucy Dias was a fact stated in the backdrop of such pleadings and on this basis, it was contended that the prohibition under the aforesaid Act did not operate against the said respondents. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is necessary to consider the pleadings in the plaint to examine as to whether the plaint deserved to be rejected as being hit by the provisions of the aforesaid Act. 9. A perusal of the plaint shows that there is reference to an order dated 16.8.2017, passed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent no. 2 is claiming ownership in the property because he had paid consideration for the sale deed. In fact, details regarding the actual consideration and whether the entire amount was given by the respondent no. 1 are matters requiring evidence. It is significant that the statement made in the plaint indicates that cause of action arose in September 2017 and that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 became aware about the existence of the name of the father/father in law of the original defendants in the sale deed dated 29.3.1993, only at the stage when they approached the competent authority for mutation of their names in respect of the suit property. 11. When the pleadings in paragraphs 7 and 8 are read in conjunction with the contents of the ....