SYED SARDARUDDIN Vs. SYED KHAJA MOINUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts of learned Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, and learned II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, are under challenge in this second appeal. This is the second round of litigation between the parties.

(2.) The appellant and Respondents 1 and 2 are brothers and Respondents 3 to 5 are sisters. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S. No.24 of 1995 for partition of the suit schedule property. According to them, it was purchased by their father for the benefit of the entire family in the name of the appellant and that the latter did not accede to their request to partition the property. The appellant pleaded that he is the exclusive owner of the property and that Respondent 1 and 2 have no share in it. Respondents 3 to 5 did not file any written statement, nor did they claim any share in the property. The Trial Court decreed the suit through its judgment, dated 20.10.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed A.S. No.63 of 1999. The appeal was also dismissed through judgment, dated 2.8.2004.

(3.) Sri R.Raghunandan, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that it is a matter of record that the property was purchased in the name of the appellant and having regard to the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition Act), 1988 (for short 'the Act'), the suit was not maintainable. He submits that even if there existed any concession on the part of the appellant permitting the Respondents 1 and 2 to enjoy the property, that by itself does not render the provisions of the Act inapplicable. Another contention advanced by the learned Counsel is that though Respondents 3 to 5 are entitled to a share in the property, in the event of it being held as joint, the Trial Court did not allot any shares to them.