RAM PYARI Vs. HARI RAM BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that the sale-deed executed in favour of his wife was a Benami Transaction and that he should be declared to be the real owner and in possession. The suit was resisted by the defendant alleging that her husband led an immoral life and had kept a concubine and was addicted to liquor and that he neglected the defendant and her children as a result of which the defendant's father made a permanent provision for her livelihood in her name. The defendant contended that the agricultural land was not purchased from the earnings of the plaintiff, but was purchased by her father. The defendant further contended that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The defendant further pleaded in the alternative that in the event, the transaction was found to be a benami transaction, the sale-deed may be treated as a gift in her name.

(2.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed several issues and, after considering the evidence, decreed the suit holding that the sale-deed executed in favour of the defendant was a benami transaction and that the land was purchased from the earnings of the plaintiff. The trial Court further found that the suit was not barred under Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(3.) THE Court vide judgment dated 5-9-1991 allowed the second appeal and dismissed the suit holding that in view of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the suit was barred. Against this judgment, the plaintiff filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was allowed by a judgment dated 8-3-1995 and the matter was remitted to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits. THE Supreme Court, while allowing the civil appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, passed the following order : "in view of the law laid down by this Court in R. Rajagopal Reddy (dead) by Lrs. & Ors. v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (dead) by Lrs. , 1955 (1) Scale 692, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. Since the High Court decided the appeal following the judgment of this Court in Mithilesh Kumari & Anr. v. Prem Behari Khare, 1989 (1) SCR 621, and other points were not dealt with, we remand the case to the High Court for fresh decision on merits and also on other points, if any, involved in the appeal. THE appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs. "