GURINDER SINGH Vs. JAGDISH VARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of four revision petitions bearing Nos.19, 20, 22 and 162 of 2017 arising out of the order dtd. 17/10/2016, whereby, applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the civil suits bearing Nos.269 of 2010 titled as "Jagdish Varinder Vs. Gurpal Kaur and others"; 294 of 2010 titled as Jagdish Varidner Vs. Gurpal Kaur and another" 266 of 2010 titled as Jagdish Varinder Singh Vs. Bhupinder Kaur and others and 268 of 2010 titled as "Jagdish Varinder Vs. Gurinder Singh and others" being not maintainable under law, have been dismissed.

(2.) Mr. R.B.S.Chahal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in all the suits, pith and substance of the plaint reveals that the declaration of ownership has been sought by taking up the plea of Sec. 4 of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (for short "1988 Act") on the premise that they purchased the land at various places including the suit land owing to the fact that the plaintiff had dispute with his former wife Shubreet Kaur. Due to close relationship, the defendants were in fiduciary relations and trustees of the plaintiff. In this regard, their names being ostensible owners were reflected in the sale deeds subject matter of the aforementioned suits. The said plea in lieu of the provisions of Sec. 2(9) and 4 of 1988 Act, is not admissible but the For Subsequent orders see {3} Court below has abdicated in not noticing the aforementioned fact holding it to be mixed question of fact and law and dismissed the applications by keeping the question open to be decided at the final stage.

(3.) In support of the aforementioned, relied upon the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in Anil Bhasin Vs. Vijay Kumar Bhasin 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 839 as all the sale deeds are post 1988. There would have been some force in the defence of the respondent-plaintiffs, had the transactions are prior to 1988.