Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.MARIA CLETE
J.Kousalya – Appellant
Versus
M.Kothandan (died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.D. Maria Clete, J.
Both these Second Appeals have been filed by the same appellant. She was the first defendant in O.S. No.69 of 2011 and the petitioner in I.A. No.200 of 2012 filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. Both appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 29.11.2013 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee, in A.S. No.15 of 2013. By that judgment, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 10.12.2012 in I.A. No.200 of 2012 in O.S. No.69 of 2011 rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, restored the suit to file for disposal on merits, and dismissed the cross-objection filed by the appellant. S.A. No.64 of 2014 is directed against the reversal of the order rejecting the plaint, and S.A. No.65 of 2014 is directed against the dismissal of the cross-objection.
2.It is seen that the appellant has preferred two separate Second Appeals against the very same judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court one ostensibly assailing the reversal of the trial Court’s order rejecting the plaint, and the other challenging the dismissal
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.
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....
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.
Section 4 (2) bars a claim or defence permitting "real owner" of such property and has been held from saying that property is benami.
Claims of property ownership must be substantiated with credible evidence, as allegations of trust do not override the Benami Transactions Act without proof of fraud.
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.
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....
(1) Rejection of plaint – Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can be taken up along with a preliminary objection and decided together by trial Court.(2) Admission of plaint is not automatic – ....
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....
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
