ANAND KUMAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 9-9-2010 passed in Civil Suit No. 76-A/2010, by which the Second Civil Judge Class II, Gadarwara. District Narsingpur rejected the application of the petitioners/defendant Nos. 1 and

(2.) Under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Brief facts giving rise to fifing of this revision are that the respondent No. 1 filed the suit against the petitioners and respondent No. 2 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction alleging that way back the respondent No. 1 has purchased the land in suit benami in the name of his mother. It is contended that the said sale deed was executed on 18-7-1979. It is further contended that the said land was never purchased from the property of joint Hindu family. Though, in the plaint description of the genealogy of family was given but the claim was made that on payment of amount of consideration by the respondent No. 1 sale deed was got executed. It is contended that since the respondent No. 1/plaintiff was honestly believing the defendants-petitioners herein and the respondent No. 2 but fraudulently they got the Will executed from the mother and got their names recorded over the disputed land. Since such an action was taken by petitioners and respondent No. 2, when respondent No. 1 came to know about such a fact, the suit was required to be filed. The reliefs claimed in the suit were that, it be declared that the land in dispute was purchased by the registered sale deed, dated 18-7-1979 by the respondent No. 1 benami in the name of his mother and in fact he was the original owner of the land in suit. The other relief claimed was grant of permanent injunction against the petitioners and respondent No. 2 restraining them to interfere in peaceful possession of respondent No. 1-plaintiff on the suit land.

(3.) The written statement was filed by the petitioner No. 2 categorically denying such allegations and stating that the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to any such decree as claimed. After filing of the written statement an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC was filed by the petitioners saying that the suit as framed by the respondent No. 1 was not maintainable and the plaint was liable to be rejected as the same is barred under the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The Trial Court heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and rejected the application of the petitioners therefore, this revision is required to be filed.