APARNA SHARMA Vs. SIDHARTHA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RFA 903/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 38618/2017 (for stay) 1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant nos. 1 and 2 /defendant nos. 1 and 2/counter-claimants impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 11.8.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the counter claim as being barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act , 1988. I may note that with effect from 1.11.2016 the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act , 1988 was amended and the new Act is now called as the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act , 1988. Since the new Act has now become applicable with effect from 1.11.2016 and the counter claim was filed by the appellant nos. 1 and 2 /defendant nos. 1 and 2 in May, 2017, therefore what will govern the parties is not the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act , 1988 but the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act , 1988.

(2.) By the subject suit the respondents/plaintiffs sought possession, damages etc. of the suit property being Flat No. 501, block 6, Plot no. 2, Sector-22, Dwarka, New Delhi. As per the admitted position appearing from pleadings of both the parties it is not in dispute that the suit property in terms of the title deeds is in the name of the respondents/plaintiffs. appellant nos. 1 and 2 /defendant nos. 1 and 2/counter claimants however set up a case that the suit property was only purchased in the name of the respondents/plaintiffs and that actually the appellant nos. 1 and 2 /defendant nos. 1 and 2 were the de jure owners as they had paid consideration with respect to the suit property to the seller/Delhi Development Authority. appellant nos. 1 and 2 /defendant nos. 1 and 2 also relied upon two power of attorneys dated 5.12.2013 executed by the respondents/plaintiffs in favour of the appellant nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos.1 and 2 that these power of attorneys showed that appellant nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the suit property.

(3.) As already stated above trial court has rejected the counter claim on account of the same being barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The counter claim has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. This Court as already stated will consider the issue from the stand point of the provisions of law as contained in the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act , 1988.