MAHINDER SINGH Vs. RANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi has dismissed suit No. 37/1989 filed by the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that the same is hit by section 4 of Benami Transaction (Prohibition of Right to Recover Property) Act, 1988. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the appellant has appealed to this court.

(2.) RELYING upon the decision of the Supreme Court in R. Rajgopal Reddy (decd. By Lrs.) and Ors. Vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan (Dead) By LRs. 1995 (1)SCALE 692. Mr. Lalwani contends that the view taken by the Court below is legally erroneous. He urged that since the suit in question was instituted by the plaintiff-appellant as early as on 11th July, 1982 the same was not forbidden by the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act aforementioned that came into force only in the year 1988. He contended that although the suit as initially filed was one for a decree for injunction only, the same was allowed to be ammended to incorporate prayer for possession in terms of an application filed in July, 1987. For all intents and purposes, therefore, the suit was a pre-legislation suit which was not hit by Section 4 (1) of the Act aforementioned.

(3.) THERE is, in our view, considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsel. The Supreme Court as in the case referred to above declared in unequivocal terms that the provisions of Section 4 (1) forbids filing of suits from the date of the commencement of the Act but does not apply to suits that were pending before the Act came into force. This is evident from the following passage: