HAKAM SINGH Vs. JASWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sanjay Mahithia, counsel for the appellant, states that the property in dispute is a copercenery property and therefore the case is covered by sub-clause 3(a) of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 .

(2.) Mr. G.S. Bawa, counsel for the respondent, disputes this contention. However, from the record, it is apparent that the appellate Court has applied this provision of the Act although there is no issue on the point. In my opinion even if the law is retrospective in operation, it is necessary that an issue should be framed and the parties should be given a fair opportunity to alter their pleadings and adduce evidence in the case. In this view of the matter, the judgment and decree of the Courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court and the following issue is framed:

(3.) The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Subordinate Judge on 26.3.1992.