2024:CGHC:32695-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 31-07-2024 Judgment delivered on : 28-08-2024 FA No. 15 of 2023 Rajni Gupta W/o Shri Laxminarayan Gupta Aged About 59 Years R/o Daldaliya Road, Bajrang Nagar, Ward No. 1, Sakri, Tahsil Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/plaintiff versus

1. Ashish Gupta S/o Shri Laxminarayan Gupta Aged About 35 Years R/o D-17, Nature City, Phase-2, Commercial Complex, Above Ganesh Super Market, Sakri, Police Station Sakri, Tahsil Sakri, District :

Bilaspur (CG)

2- State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG)

... Respondents/Defendants For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : None.

For Respondent No.2/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ

C A V Judgment

01. Challenge in this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2022 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.29-A/2020 whereby the suit has been dismissed.

02. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit with the averments that land bearing Khasra No.531/11, area 0.20 acre, P.H.No.26, R.N.M. Sakri, Tahsil-Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, was purchased by her husband Laxminarayan Gupta and herself on 19.8.1998 from their own income from Abdul Kalim through registered sale deed. The said land was purchased in the name of her son/defendant No.1 Ashish Gupta who was minor at that time. However, after marriage defendant No.1 along with his wife started misbehaving with the plaintiff and her husband and threatened them of their implication in false case. Though in the social meeting, defendant No.1 and his wife gave undertaking in writing of not misbehaving with them but their conduct did not change towards them, so on 22.12.2019, 23.6.2020 and 6.8.2020 husband of the plaintiff made complaint to the police authorities against wife of defendant No.1. The suit land was purchased from the income of the plaintiff and her husband, hence defendant No.1 has no right or title over the same. Since defendant No.1 is trying to sell the suit land, she filed the instant suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against him.

03. Defendant No.1 remained ex-parte since beginning and also did not file any written statement. However, learned trial Court after considering pleadings of the plaintiff and the documents filed by her dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence this appeal.

04. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the impugned judgment and decree are illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the sale deed dated 19.8.1998 (Ex.P/1) clearly demonstrates that at the time of execution of the sale deed, defendant No.1 was minor and therefore, it shall be presumed that the property was not purchased by defendant No.1 from his own income. Learned trial Court grossly erred in holding that the suit is not maintainable as the same is barred by Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 whereas the said Act is not applicable to this case. The suit property was, in fact, purchased by the plaintiff and her husband from their own income. Defendant No.1 remained ex-parte in the proceedings since beginning and also did not file any written statement and in absence of specific denial, presumption will arise in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No.1. Learned trial Court has erred in holding that the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 will not have retrospective effect and as per Section 4(1) of the Act of1988 suit cannot be filed. It is a settled law that revenue entries do not confer any title. Learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record in its correct perspective. Therefore, the impugned judgment a