TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 969
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondents No. 18 and 20 in RSA No. 241 of 2005. Mr Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.1 in RSA No. 251 of 2005. Name of respondent No.2 deleted vide order dated 24.05.2022 in RSA No. 251 of 2005. None for respondents No.3 to 5 in RSA No. 251 of 2005. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge ORDER The present appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2005, passed by learned District Judge, Solan District Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2003, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld and the appeal and the cross objections preferred by the appellant (plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) were dismissed. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land mentioned in para-1 of the plaint and interfering with his posses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is collusive between the plaintiff and defendants No.16 to 19, as alleged? OPP 2-A Whether the suit is hit under Section 4(1) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is out of possession, and a suit for injunction is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the suit time-barred? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit as alleged? 6. Whether the defendants No.1 to 15 are entitled to possession of one Bigha and one Biswa of land as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether the counter claim is time barred? OPP. 8. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP. 9. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of Khasra No. 649, 651, 652, 653 and 654 as alleged? OPP. 10. Relief. 6. The parties were called up to produce the evidence, and the plaintiff examined himself (PW-1), Ved Parkash (PW-2), Ramchander (PW-3), Umesh Kumar (PW-4) and Dalip Singh (PW-5). The defendant examined Davinder Kumar (DW-1) and Kamlesh Sharma (DW-2) 7. Learned Trial Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidence and have erred in not decreeing the suit, who is in settled possession as the owner of the suit land? RSA No. 251 of 2005 1. Whether the inferences and conclusions, as drawn by the learned District Judge against the present appellants, are neither supported by material on record, nor by provisions of law? 2. Whether the findings in the impugned judgment and decree, as passed by the learned District Judge, to the extent those are against the appellants, are self-contradictory and unsustainable under the law, those having arisen on account of mis-reading and misinterpretation and respective claims of the parties and provisions of law, as applicable? 3. Whether the learned District Judge, having held that the Sale deeds Ex. PW-2/A and Ex.PW-3/A pertaining to 5 biswa of land, dated 20.10.1948 and area measuring 13 biswa, as per the Sale deed dated 30.11.1949, are hit by the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act; therefore, the natural consequence is that sellers S/Sh. Shiv Ram and Basti Ram in the eyes of law are held to be owners of this land, and the present appellants, being their legal heirs and successors, automatically hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is an admitted case of the plaintiff that his predecessor had purchased the land in the name of Hira Nand vide Sale deed No.51, dated 20.10.1948 and Sale deed No. 60, dated 23.11.1948, as Benami. This fact was asserted in para. 1 of the plaint. It was further asserted that the reason for the purchase in the name of Hira Nand was that a person not residing at Kandaghat could not purchase the property at Kandaghat, whereas Hira Nand, being a local resident, was competent to purchase the property; therefore, the land was purchased as Benami in the name of Hira Nand. 15. The plaintiff Braham Dev Sood (PW-1) stated that the land was purchased in the name of Pandit Hira Nand because the land could not have been purchased by his father. No person objected to the possession of the plaintiff's predecessor or, thereafter, the possession of the plaintiff. 16. Section 4 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act as it stood on the date of the filing of the suit provided that no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held Benami against the person, in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Padmini Chandrasekharan, (1995) 2 SCC 630], continues to apply." 18. Thus, only the proceedings pending on the date of commencement of the Benami Act were saved, and the provisions of the Act will apply to the proceedings initiated after the commencement of the Act. In the present case, the proceedings were initiated after the commencement of the Benami Act, and those would be affected by the Benami Act. 19. In Manjula v. D.A. Srinivas, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 831, the plaintiff was barred from purchasing the land by the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961; therefore, the plaintiff funded the purchase in the name of another, who converted the land for non-agricultural use, and the plaintiff sought the transfer in his name. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the transaction was a Benami arrangement prohibited under the Benami Act. It was observed: "26.2. The pleadings further disclose that since the Plaintiff or his company was disentitled from directly purchasing the lands, a mechanism was devised whereby the Plaintiff allegedly funded the purchase in the name of another, caused the lands to be converted for non-agricultural use, and thereafter sought trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansactions had taken place before the commencement of Benami Act, it was not possible to give effect to the transaction in a suit instituted after the commencement of the Act, hence, this substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Substantial question of law No.2. 22. The suit was filed regarding the property purchased vide Sale deed number 51 and Sale deed No.60. Learned District Judge had described the property as suit land-1 and suit land-2 for convenience. This did not affect the outcome of the decision because the nature of the property remained Benami, and the suit continued to be hit by the provisions of the Benami Act. Hence, this substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Substantial question of law No.3. 23. Section 4 of the Benami Act prohibits a person claiming to be the real purchaser from enforcing any right in respect of the Benami property against any person. Thus, there is an absolute prohibition to enforce any right, and this prohibition cannot be circumvented by saying that the plaintiff is entitled to protect his possession against the whole world except the true owner. This would amount to enforcing the right arising out of the p....