JUDGMENT :

[Mini Pushkarna, J.]

I.A. 15577/2019 (Application under Order 12 RULE 6 CPC on behalf of defendant no. 1 for dismissal of the suit)

1. The present application under Order 12 Rule 6 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 for dismissal of the present suit, seeking a judgment on admission, in view of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (Benami Act) read with Section 16 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963.

2. The present suit is for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 06.02.2017 and Supplementary Agreement dated 15.05.2017 in respect of a double storey built up property bearing No. 5878, built on plot No. 19-B in Block UA, measuring 183.3 sq. Yards situated in the layout plan of Northern City Extension, Scheme No. 1, Sabzi Mandi, presently known as Jawahar Nagar, Malka Ganj Road, Delhi – 110009 (suit property). By way of the aforesaid Agreement to Sell, predecessor-in-interest of defendants agreed for sale of the suit property to the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.10 crores. At the time of execution of the Agreement to Sell, plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.1 crore as part payment in respect of purchase of the suit property. The balance sale consideration of Rs.9 crores was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of Sale Deed in respect of the suit property, which was agreed to be done on or before 16.05.2017.

3. However, due to various intervening circumstances, sale deed in respect of the suit property was not executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants herein. The predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, Sh. Prehlad Singh Chandhok expired in the last week of June, 2017. Since the defendants herein did not respond to the plaintiff for execution of the sale deed in his favour, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff.

4. The suit is premised on the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff for payment of the amounts towards purchase of the suit property in terms of the aforesaid Agreements.

5. During the pendency of the present suit, plaintiff claimed before this Court that he was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.9 crores. Thus, this Court passed order dated 09.10.2018 and directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance amount of Rs.9 crores with the Registrar General of this Court within three weeks. Pursuant to the said order, Rs.9 crores was deposited on behalf of plaintiff on 31.10.2018.

6. It is the case on behalf of defendants that the said amount of Rs.9 crores was in fact deposited by M/s CSKG Agro (P) Ltd. (‘CSKG Agro’) which is not a party in the present proceedings. The plaintiff neither pleaded nor filed any document to show any funding arrangement with the said entity. Thus, it is contended that the plaintiff has entered into some benami transactions with the aforesaid CSKG Agro for purchase of the property in question and it is that entity which has been the funding entity behind the scenes.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the present application for dismissal of the suit on admission on the basis of Benami Act has been filed.

8. It is submitted on behalf of defendants that CSKG Agro is a legal entity different from plaintiff, so there was no occasion for CSKG Agro to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.9 crores before this Court in a suit for specific performance that has been filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is apparent that the plaintiff is a benamidar of CSKG Agro in respect of Agreement to Sell dated 06.02.2017. Thus, it is contended that the plaintiff’s dealings with CSKG Agro comes within the prohibition under the Benami Act. Section 3 and 4 of the Benami Act prohibit benami transactions and consequently, the plaintiff being a benamidar of CSKG Agro, could not have filed the present suit.

9. It is further submitted on behalf of defendants that a benami agreement being contrary to law, cannot