NIRANJAN KAUR Vs. AMARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant for setting aside order dtd. 26/5/2016 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohali whereby petitioner/defendant's application dtd. 20/8/2015 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-Niranjan Kaur (now deceased) had purchased suit property from the funds given to her by her son, who is the husband of plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 that prior to buying the said property in the name of petitioner-Niranjan Kaur, there was mutual agreement between the parties that the house in question/suit property will be transferred in the name of respondent No.1 and her children. However, as relationship between the parties became strained, petitioner refused to transfer suit property in the name of respondent No.1. Accordingly, respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit dtd. 12/6/2015 (Annexure P1) for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. In the said Suit, petitioner/defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that property in the name of petitioner could not be claimed by the respondents due to prohibition as contained in Sec. 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Benami Act'). It is this application, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court by way of impugned order. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased property in her name by finances provided by her son. It is submitted that as such, the Suit was barred by afflux of law as, as per Sec. 4 of the Benami Act, right to recover benami property is prohibited. It is further submitted that moreover, the respondents/plaintiffs had no locus to file the instant Suit which was solely filed with intent of causing harassment to the petitioner and to usurp property of the petitioner. It is further submitted that at best, son of the petitioner could have laid challenge but the respondents/plaintiffs have no locus to do so.