L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts of learned Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, and learned II Additional District Judge, mahabubnagar, are under challenge in this second appeal. This is the second round of litigation between the parties.

( 2 ) THE appellant and Respondents 1 and 2 are brothers and Respondents 3 to 5 are sisters. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O. S. No. 24 of 1995 for partition of the suit schedule property. According to them, it was purchased by their father for the benefit of the entire family in the name of the appellant and that the latter did not accede to their request to partition the property. The appellant pleaded that he is the exclusive owner of the property and that Respondent 1 and 2 have no share in it. Respondents 3 to 5 did not file any written statement, nor did they claim any share in the property. The Trial Court decreed the suit through its judgment, dated 20. 10. 1998. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed A. S. No. 63 of 1999. The appeal was also dismissed through judgment, dated 2. 8. 2004.

( 3 ) SRI R. Raghunandan, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that it is a matter of record that the property was purchased in the name of the appellant and having regard to the provisions of the benami Transactions (Prohibition Act), 1988 (for short the Act ), the suit was not maintainable. He submits that even if there existed any concession on the part of the appellant permitting the Respondents 1 and 2 to enjoy the property, that by itself does not render the provisions of the Act inapplicable. Another contention advanced by the learned Counsel is that though respondents 3 to 5 are entitled to a share in the property, in the event of it being held as joint, the Trial Court did not allot any shares to them.

( 4 ) SRI E. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that the property was purchased by the father of the parties in the name of the appellant for the sake of convenience and ever since the date of purchase, it was treated as the property belonging to the family. He submits that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court categorically held that the property belongs to all the members of the family, though it stands in the name of the appellant and that it is not open to the appellant to raise the plea of benami transaction at this stage.

( 5 ) THE suit schedule property was purchased way back in the year 1962. The sale deed is in favour of the appellant. After the death of their father, Respondents 1 and 2 were said to have started interfering with the possession of the appellant over the said property. That necessitated him to file O. S. No. 64 of 1975 for. the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction against Respondents 1 and 2 herein. The suit was dismissed on 27. 12. 1976. A. S. No. 23 of 1978 was filed by him in the court of the District Judge, Mahabubnagar. This was also dismissed on 4. 4. 1980. He filed S. A. No. 868 of 1981 before this court. While dismissing the second appeal, this Court in its order, dated 16. 10. 1986, recorded a categorical finding to the effect that though the property was purchased in the name of the appellant herein, it is for the benefit of all the members of the family, Respondents 1 and 2 also. That finding became final.

( 6 ) IN the present round of litigation, respondents 1 and 2 sought for partition of the same property. The appellant resisted the suit mainly by relying on Section 4 of the Act. It is true that Section 4 of the act prohibits filing of suit in relation to a property held benami by a different person. The only exceptions carved out under section 4 of the Act are those in relation to hindu joint families or where the property is held in trust for the benefit of others. Admittedly such exceptions do not exist in the present case. The expression benami transaction is defined under Section 2 (a) of the Act.

( 7 ) IF O. S. No. 24 of 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document