NEW BANK OF INDIA Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner brought a suit for recovery from the defendants by sale of the mortgaged property. During trial, the petitioner sought amendment of its plaint to substitute paragraph 11 of the plaint by averring that "shri Bhupinder Singh, Parkash Kaur, Japinder Pal Singh and Japinder Pal Kaur were big land owners and, in order to avoid the ceiling laws of the Punjab State, they made the following benami and fictitious transfers in favour of their nominees through collusive civil court decrees. " Then, various decrees were referred to with reference to the dates of passing of such decrees. All these decrees relate to the year 1972. It was further averred that the transfers were in the names of nominees of Bhupinder Singh, Parkash Kaur, Japinder Pal Singh and Japinder Pal Kaur in order to avoid the ceiling laws. They were paper transactions and were never acted upon, rather Bhupinder Singh, etc. , remained in possession of the land. These transfers were non-existent and have got no bearing on the rights of the plaintiff. The defendant mortgaged the lands treating these transfers as non-existent, rather the lands were already under mortgage, vide the deed dated June 21, 1971. The defendant, in order to defraud the plaintiff, got made further transfers from the nominees in favour of defendants Nos. 4 to 16. It was claimed in the proposed amended plaint that the plaintiff is not bound by the said transfers and the transfers in their favour are null and void and have got no effect on the rights of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaintiff further prayed to implead the transferees as defendants, inter alia, contending that the transfers made are fictitious and benami in favour of the persons sought to be impleaded as parties.

(3.) THE trial court declined the amendment, inter alia, on the ground that 14 years have passed after the passing of the decrees in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants sought to be added. An amendment was sought on June 12, 1986, and, apparently, the limitation for a suit for declaration of the decrees being bad has already expired. In this regard, it was observed that the persons having purchased the land, a valuable right of ownership vested in them as far back as in July, 1972, and the court decrees having not been challenged even how, the suit would be apparently barred by time. The loans, of the mortgage created, relate to the period July, 1974, onwards. Seeking a declaration that the transfers effected in favour of the defendants and the persons sought to be added as defendants were mala fide and illegal and not binding on the petitioner would be a new cause of action. Thus, the amendment was declined.