WILLIAM SINGH SANDHU Vs. SUKHWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 17.09.2015 (Annexure P-4), whereby the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure submitted on behalf of the petitioner-defendant for rejection of the plaint, has been declined.

(2.) Mr. R.B.S.Chahal, learned counsel for petitioner-defendant submitted that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit claiming declaration by laying challenge to the sale deeds mentioned at points A to E on the premise that the land was purchased by proforma defendant Jagdish Varinder Singh Sandhu, but the sale deeds were executed in the name of the plaintiff company. In fact, the plaintiff did not contribute anything towards the sale consideration. Plaintiff came into possession on behalf of the proforma defendant and, thus, the status was of an ostensible owner. Defendant No.1 is the elder brother of the proforma defendant and one Gurvinder Singh, who is the son-in-law of late Tapinder Singh, maternal uncle of defendant No.1. The said Tapinder Singh used to reside with Major General Mohinder Singh Sandhu. It was disclosed by defendant No.2 Sukhwant Singh that on 04.05.2010, defendant No.1 called him to the office of Sub Registrar, Patiala. There was no reason for defendant No.2 to doubt the intentions of defendant No.1 and Gurvinder Singh, but later on came to know that fraud had been played upon defendant No.

(3.) The trust reposed by the elder brother was misused by the defendants. A family settlement was arrived at which was reduced into writing on 27.02010 and an addendum dated 004.2010 was incorporated in the family settlement and as per the family settlement, one of the defendants had agreed to compensate the petitioner by getting properties transferred. A complaint was lodged before the Sub Registrar regarding undervaluation of the sale deeds, which was impounded and proceedings under Sec. 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated. It is not understandable as to how the plaintiff can espouse the grievance of defendant No.2 in the absence of any statement of the proforma defendant or by defendant No.2. Benami transaction as per the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is not maintainable.