JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff is the appellant, aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, rejecting the plaint, allowing the application filed by the defendants on the ground that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (herein after called as Act).

2.I have heard Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the respondent 1 to 4. There is no appearance on the side of the respondents 5 to 8.

3. Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant are husband and wife and during the happier times, the plaintiff had purchased the suit property in favour of his wife and father-in-law. It is the case of the plaintiff that the entire sale consideration was met only by the plaintiff and there was no intention to benefit his wife and further, the plaintiff is entitled to establish that it was a benami purchase. The suit has been filed on the strength of these averments to declare that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the suit properties and for various other reliefs. Pending the suit, the property had been sold and the purchasers, defendants 2, 4 to 6 have taken out I.A.No.3 of 2019, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Act.

4.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that though the Act underwent an amendment by Act 43 of 2016, the amended provisions came into force only on 01.11.2016 and therefore, he would contend that to decide the suit, relevant provisions that would apply are only the unamended provisions of the Act. He would further state that the allegations in the plaint have to be tested only at trial and when there is an exemption for purchase of the property by the husband in the name of his wife, then it is not a case for a summary rejection of the plaint. He would also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Vs. Babulal, since deceased through LR's and others, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 367, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar circumstance, where the plaint was sought to be rejected on the ground that it was barred by the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, held that when the plaint makes out a controversy, then suit is saved by Section 4(3) of the Act and disputed questions of fact would have to be adjudicated only on the basis of evidence and plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. He would therefore pray for the appeal being allowed.

5.Per contra, Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, who are purchasers of the suit property from the father- in-law of the plaintiff, would contend that the respondents 1 to 4 are bonafide purchasers for value. The property was admittedly standing in the name of the wife of the appellant and she had settled the property in favour of her father, who in turn had sold the property in favour of these respondents, who have purchased the property for value and therefore, the respondents rightly moved an application for rejection of the plaint, as they should not be compelled to undergo the agony of trial, when the provisions of the Act clearly prohibit the plaintiff from claiming that the property was purchased benami, in the name of his wife.

6.Referring to the plaint averments, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that it is a clear case where the plaintiff admits that it was a benami transaction and therefore, the provisions of the Act would clearly be applicable to the facts of the case and the relief sought for in the suit cannot be available to the plaintiff. He would also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Kumari and another Vs. Prem Behari Khare in Civil Appeal No.2311 of 1978 dated 14.02.1989, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Act nullifies all defence available to the real owner, in