TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 938
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dents 2 to 4 are defendants 2 to 4 in the said suit. The 1st respondent filed the said suit against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to convey the suit property to and in favour of her children, the respondents 2 & 3 by executing deed of settlement or gift, directing the 4th respondent/Sub Registrar not to receive and register any document of conveyance or encumbrance or charge pertaining to the suit schedule property, permanent injunction restraining the petitioner, her men and agents or anybody claiming under her from encumbering or alienating the suit property and for a direction to the petitioner to pay the cost of the suit to the plaintiff/1st respondent herein. In the said suit, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....octor's Colony" and only life members of Indian Medical Association (IMA) can buy the plot either in his name or in his spouse name. The 1st respondent purchased the suit property in the name of the petitioner for the benefit of the children i.e., respondents 2 & 3 out of his own funds. The 1st respondent further stated that the transaction is benami transaction and the 1st respondent will prove the same by letting in evidence during Trial. The present suit has triable issue and the suit is maintainable as the 1st respondent has mentioned the cause of action in the plaint and plaint cannot be rejected and prayed for dismissal of the I.A. No. 846 of 2015. 4. The learned Judge considering the averments in the plaint, affidavit filed in s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appearing for the petitioner relied on the following judgments and prayed for allowing the Civil Revision Petition. (i) The judgment reported in (2019) 17 SCC 692, [Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh and another], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No. 11, has held as follows: "...11. It is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court that in each and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff, it is not necessary that in all those cases, plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie only where the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to the title, and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in thos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... third party against the interest of the respondents 2 & 3 and the 1st respondent issued notice dated 29.09.2014 to the 4th respondent/The Sub Registrar, SRO, Tambaram, not to receive and register any document in respect of the suit property. The 1st respondent has clearly disclosed the cause of action for the suit in the plaint and question of benami transaction can be decided only based on the evidence let in by the parties during Trial. The learned Judge considered the entire materials and dismissed the I.A. by giving cogent and valid reason and relied on the following judgments and prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition: (i) The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1995 (II) CTC 356, [Nand Kishore Mehra Vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....encumbering or alienating the suit property. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner and 1st respondent got married on 31.10.1988 and he purchased the suit property in the name of the petitioner for the benefit of their children, the respondents 2 and 3. Due to dispute, the marriage between the petitioner and 1st respondent was dissolved by decree of divorce dated 11.09.2014 and their children, the respondents 2 and 3 are with the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is looking after the respondents 2 and 3 and maintaining them. The petitioner is trying to alienate the suit property, contrary to the intention of buying the suit property in her name and is trying to defeat the benefits of respondents 2 and 3 by alienating the suit prop....