Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY
Umashankar Purohit Dead through their Legal Representatives Smt. Alka Purohit – Appellant
Versus
Chandrashekhar Purohit S/o Late Prabhulal Purohit – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rejection of plaint under order vii rule 11 (Para 1 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. nature of suit and parties' relationship (Para 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding rejection of plaint (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. non-retrospective application of benami transactions act (Para 9 , 16) |
| 5. final order dismissing the appeal (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J.
1. The appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of CPC challenging the order passed by learned District Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 4A/2013 dated 26.2.2015, whereby the plaint was rejected applying provisions under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC.
2. Facts of the present case are that the original plaintiff namely Umashankar Purohit filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to Survey numbers 141, 145 and 200 total ad-measuring 15.05 acres situated at Village – Limora, Tehsil – Gunderdehi, District – Balod (C.G.). The original plaintiff further sought declaration to the effect that sale-deed executed by respondent no. 1 in favor of the respondent no. 2 to 4 dated 31.10.2007 be declared null and void inter alia on the ground that late Kasturichand Purohit,
The prohibition against suits concerning benami transactions under Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions Act is applicable, and such provisions must be evaluated within the context of the law's ena....
A suit claiming rights in property cannot be dismissed at the threshold without a trial based on arguments of benami ownership as these require evidence to substantiate claims.
The court held that the rejection of the plaint was improper as the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the property did not qualify as benami under the exceptions provided in the Benami Transactions....
The court held that a claim for property belonging to a joint Hindu family is not barred as benami under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act when purchased with family funds, requirin....
The mere existence of a familial relationship does not constitute a fiduciary relationship necessary to exempt a transaction from the bar of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.
A benami transaction to a married daughter does not qualify for exemption under Section 3(2)(a) of the Old Act, rendering the plaintiffs' suit barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act.
A suit challenging a sale deed filed after the limitation period is barred and must be dismissed, emphasizing the necessity of disclosing a valid cause of action and proper valuation.
At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court cannot go into the veracity of the pleas taken in the plaint or its truthfulness. The same can only be tested in a trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
