TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner, vide Sale Deeds bearing Vasika No. 3896 dated 14.09.2012 & Vasika No. 8736 dated 01.02.2016, respectively, with the understanding that same shall be transferred in favour of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on attaining the age of 20 years. Further prayer is for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining petitioner from interfering in their peaceful possession and not to alienate the same in any manner. 3. Upon notice, petitioner entered into appearance and filed application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, which was opposed at the instance of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by way of joint reply. 4. Learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the averments made in plaint, dismissed the application while passing the impugned order. 5. Hence, the present petition. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that plaint does not disclose any cause of action in case the averments made in plaint are to be accepted as correct, then also both the Sale Deeds would be treated as benami transactions and as such, the suit is barred by law. Further contended that in view of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'Registration Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when, the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage." Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swamy Atmananda v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam, (2005) 10 SCC 51 while explaining the "cause of action" in para 24 of the judgment observed as under:- "A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame of the Defendant No. 1, both times it was orally decided, agreed, understood and confirmed by the two Defendants and also conveyed to the two Plaintiffs that the Defendant No. 1 shall hold the two properties in trust and for the benefits of the two Plaintiffs, standing in a fiduciary capacity towards the Plaintiffs. The parties to this suit and particularly the Defendant No. 1 knew right from the beginning that she has no right, title or interest in the suit properties and she was merely holding it in trust for the Plaintiffs and that ultimately the suit properties have to be transferred in the names of the two Plaintiffs, in equal share, when both of them attain the age of 20 years. It is stated that the Plaintiff No. 1 attained the age of 20 years on 29.01.2019 and the Plaintiff No. 2 attained the age of 20 years on 26.06.2020. It is stated that right from the date of purchase of the two suit properties, the rights of the Plaintiffs qua the same were well recognized. Therefore, in terms of the oral understanding after 26.06.2020, the Defendant No. 1 ought to have transferred the suit properties in favour of the Plaintiffs. It was the duty and obligation of the Defendant No. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the property No. 2, which is in the tenancy of M/s. Interior Dreams Private Limited and interfering in possession of the said tenant. The cause of action is continuing in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant No. 1." As per the averments made in above paragraphs, entire consideration for both the Sale Deeds was paid by father of respondent Nos. 1 & 2. No doubt, the Sale Deeds were executed in the name of petitioner, but those are stated to be with an oral understanding between the parties that petitioner shall hold properties in trust due to fiduciary relationship for the benefit of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and same shall be transferred in their favour on attaining the age of 20 years. In para 15 of the plaint, it is duly explained that properties were purchased in the name of petitioner for the reason that firstly respondent Nos. 1 & 2 should complete their basic education and when they will become mature enough, then the properties shall be transferred in their favour. 11. Obviously, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 will have to prove the factum of the oral understanding as well as source of funds allegedly provided by their father (respondent No. 3) regarding Sale Deeds, but ....