THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order, dated 09.03.2015 passed in I.A.No.1338 of 2014 in O.S.No.555 of 2014 by the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, (for short ‘the impugned order’).

2. Vide the impugned order, the trial court after going into the merits of the case and considering the entire oral and documentary evidence placed by the petitioner/defendant has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the C.P.C.), seeking to reject the plaint as barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit i.e., O.S.No.555 of 2014 filed by the respondent/plaintiff claiming that he is in possession of suit schedule property which is said to have purchased by him vide document No.10732 of 2000, dated 13.12.2000, 1873 and 1874 of 2022, dated 05.03.2002, in Sy.Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 25 & 26, situated at Miyapur Village, Boduppal Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The suit schedule property was purchased in the name of his three daughters with his own financial resources as benamis and that as there is a dispute raised by the defendant in respect of the raising of the compound wall and trying to dismantle the same and the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief against the defendant and further to grant injunction against the defendant restraining her from interfering with the possession of suit schedule property.

4. Pending the suit, the revision petitioner i.e., the defendant filed an interlocutory application stating the suit is barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The respondent/plaintiff filed his counter denying the averments made in the petition and further contended that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property in the name of his three daughters with his own resources and that there is no prohibition, if a father purchased a benami property in the name of his own daughters and accordingly the father would continue as the owner of the property unless it is proved that it is purchased by the father for the benefit of his daughters. It is further contended by the respondent/plaintiff that as the second daughter got married to one Mr.Gyaneshwar secretly without the knowledge of the respondent/plaintiff and the present suit is filed only to get the property. It is also stated that the petitioner/defendant has filed a suit vide O.S.No.178 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, claiming as if she is the owner of the suit schedule property and obtained exparte status quo orders against the respondent/plaintiff with a direction not to interfere with the alleged possession. It is further contended by the respondent/plaintiff that the petitioner/defendant is repeating the same misrepresentation of law has filed the present revision, though admittedly the respondent/plaintiff had purchased the property B in the name of petitioner/defendant and it was for her benefit.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, the trial court came to conclusion that the suit cannot be thrown away at the threshold on Order VII Rule 11 and found no merits and dismissed the petition.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed contending that the trial court did not consider the fact that the respondent/plaintiff had purchased the said property in the name of the petitioner/defendant benami and it clearly shows that the same is hit by the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and the plaint ought to have rejected at the threshold itself. It is also further averred that Sec