CHANDRAWATI PUNU GAONKAR Vs. NILU MANJU VELIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.S. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 5.

(2.) The appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 10/08/2007 on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the learned Trial Judge has non suited the respondents on the ground that the defence raised by the respondents is hit by the provisions of Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The learned Counsel further points out that it is the case of the respondents in the written statement that the disputed property is in coownership between the defendants and that the original Sale Deed was executed in the name of the grandfather of the respondent no.3 because the father Zorgo was a minor. The learned Counsel further points out that it is the case of the respondents no.1,2 & 5 that the property was in fact purchased in the name of said Zorgo by the grandfather for the benefit of Zorgo as well as his brother Manju. The learned Counsel further points out that this defence of the respondents was held to be hit by the provisions of Section 4 of the Benami Transaction Act and, as such, the Lower Appellate Court was not justified to interfere in the impugned judgment on the ground that the claim of the respondents comes within the explanation to the provisions of Section 4 of the said Benami Transaction Act. The learned Counsel further submits that the learned Lower Appellate Court has erroneously come to the conclusion father of the defendant no.3 of defendants no.1 & 5