SUBHASH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. GYANCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOT a dismissal of the suit at the end of a civil trial but the rejection of plaint at the very threshold of the civil jurisdiction of the trial Court, holding the suit to be barred by law of the land, has left the plaintiff with no other choice but to prefer this First Appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. The contesting defendant pleaded the bar enacted by section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Benami Act', for short) to the maintainability of the suit and the plea has found favour with the trial Court entailing exclusion of trial of plaintiff's case on merits.

(2.) THE facts in brief and only to the extent necessary for the decision in this appeal may be noticed. The parties, except Balkrishan, the defendant No.6, are members of the same family. The following family tree explains their relationship inter se; Ramgopal Gupta

(3.) ACCORDING to the defendant No.6, the plaintiff wants the suit property standing in the name of defendant No.5 to be adjudged Benami, a claim incapable of being canvassed before and adjudicated upon by a civil Court in view of the provisions contained in the Benami Act. On 9.4.1990, the defendant No.6 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint submitting that the transaction dated 16.2.1973 describing purchase of the suit property in the name of Smt. Sushila the defendant No.2, as a member of HUF amounted to pleading a case of Benami as the plaintiff had intended to suggest that the property though standing in the name of Smt. Sushila Gupta was in reality belonging to the HUF, a plea statutorily excluded by section 4 of the Benami Act, rendering the suit barred by law from the statement in the plaint.