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 Act, affirming the need for evidence evaluation in ownership claims.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the CPC against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.8.2025 passed by the court of Civil Judge(Senior Division) Meerut in O.S. No. 782 of 2006 Sunil Kumar Dublish vs. Ramesh Chand Dublish(deceased through LR) and others, whereby the defendant's application 89-C under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and consequently, the plaint has been rejected on the ground that the suit is barred under Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions(Prohibition) Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988'.

2. Factual matrix is that the plaintiff- appellant Sunil Kumar Dublish filed O.S. No. 782 of 2006 with the averments that that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 Ramesh Chand Dublish and defendant no.2 Smt. Sarla Dublish belong to the same family, the defendant no.1 is the father of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 is the mother of the plaintiff. It was averred that the predecessors of the plaintiff and above defendants Late Shanti Saran Dublish was the owner in possession of certain agricultural property, which was described in para 3 of the plaint situated in village Mawana Kalan, Pargana Hastinapur, Tehsil Mawana, District-Meerut, the khasra number of which was changed in consolidation proceedings, which is presently recorded in the name of defendant no.1. It was further averred that Late Shanti Saran Dublish died in the year 1953, who was the grandfather of the plaintiff, had four sons namely Ramesh Chand Dublish(defendant no.1), Suresh Chand,Naresh Chand and Umesh Chand.

3. It was further averred by the plaintiff that after the death of Shanti Saran Dublish a family partition took place on 24.2.1953 between the four sons of the deceased and the property was divided into four shares and the defendant no.1 became the owner in possession of land inherited in family partition. It was further averred by the plaintiff that he being the grandson of Shanti Saran Dublish, is the owner of half share of the above property and the remaining half share of the above property belongs to defendant no.1. It was further averred that the defendant no.1, being the father of the plaintiff, was looking after the management of the above property, as the family was Hindu Undivided Family.

4. It was further averred by the plaintiff that his father/defendant no.1 transferred a major portion of the above property to various persons on the assumption that he was the sole owner of the above property without informing and seeking any permission from the plaintiff and the amount received after transferring the property as consideration, also remained with the defendant no.1, as the family was undivided.

5. It was further averred that from the income of the partnership firm Messers Sunil Packaging Industries, in which his father was a sleeping partner, and from the cash credit Bank limit availed by him, certain immovable properties were purchased in the year 1989 and 1990, the description of which was given in the plaint, in the name of his mother, Smt. Sarla Dublish (defendant no.2), on which a house was constructed by him from the funds obtained by selling agricultural property and as such,after the death of his mother on 24.2.2015, he has become the sole owner of this property bearing no. 342/1 Harnamdass Road, Civil Lines, Meerut.

6. It was further averred that his mother, Smt. Sarla Dublish was only a Benami owner of the above property and afte