The High Court · 2025

THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAo NI,NDIKONDA C.R.P. No.3281 of 2015 ORDER: The present Civil Revision petition has b: )n filed by the petitioner/ defendant under Arttcle 227 ol the Constitut i,r r ol India assailing the order, dated O9.03.2O15 passcd in LA.No.133B of 2C. 2014 by the VIII Additionat Senior Civil Juclge, Ranrl I 4 in C).S. No.5.55 of Rcddv District at L.B.Nagar, (for short'the impugned order'). 2. Vide the impugned orcler, the trial court after goin c into the merits ol the case and considering the entirc oral and documentan thc petitioner/ defendan t has dismisse<l the petir.( petitioner/defendant uncler Ordcr VII Rule 11 of the Co.l :vidence placed by : filecl by the of Civil Procedure (for short the C.P.C.), sceking to reject the plaint as Lrir,.. :d by thc Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. 3. Brief facts of the case arc that thc petitioncr hereir.r the suit i.e., O.S.No.55S of 2014 liled by the respondent/pi: s the defendant in ntiff claiming that he is in possession of suit schedule property which is saic .o have purchased by him vide document No. 10732 of 2OOO, clated 13. t2.2OOo i873 ancl 7874 of 2022, dated 05.03.2002, in Sy.Nos. t, 2, 3, 4, 25 & 26, :l Village, Boduppal Gram panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rar Lrated at Miyapur ga Reddy District. The suit schedule property was purchased in the name oj. I with his own financial resources as benamis and that a s s three daughters irere is a dispute l l i 2 {Ml-.1 CRP.I'!o.3281 of 20rs raiscd by the defcndant in respect of the raisir-rg of the compound '"vall and trying to dismantlc thc same and the ptaintilf fited a suii for declaration of title and consequt:ntial rclicl ag.rinst tlrc dclcndant and furthcr to grant injunctio:r against lhe dcfcnclant restraining her from ir-rterfcring with the possessiotl ol suit scl'redulc propcrty.

4. Pcnding thc suit, thc revision petitioner i.e., the defendant hled an interloculory application stating tl'rc suit is barred by the Bcnami Transaclions (Prohibition) Act, 19U8. The rc spondent/ plainti ff trled his countcr denying thc al,crlnents madc it-t the pctition and further contendcd that thc plaintilf ltacl purchascd thr: suit schcdule property in the name of his threc daughters u'ith his own resourccs and that there is no prohibition, i[ a father purchascd a bcnalni propcrty in thc name of his own daughters aud accordinEily the lather rvould continuc as thc ou'ner of the property unless it is provcd that it is purchased by the fathcr fcrr the benefit of his daughters. lt is further contendecl by the rc spondent / plain tiff that as the second daughter got married Lo onc Mr- (iyattcshri'ar secrctly without the knowledge of the respondcn t/ plain tifl and thc prcsent suit is filed only to get the property. It is also stated that the petitioncr/ defcn dant has filed a suit vide O.S.No 178 ol 2Ol4 on the hle of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, claiming as if she is the owner o[ the suit schedule property and obtaincd exparte stafus quo orders against the re spondent/ plaintiff with a direction not to interfere with the 3 {t&,/ eB!.No.32aL4t 20ls alleged possession. It is furthcr contendcd by thc responr:, rt/plaiintit-f th.rt thc petitioner/ dcfenda n t is repeating Lhe s:rme misrepresentr ion of lau, has file<l the present revisi.n, though admi edly thc respr r :lent/plairrtill harl purchasccl the propcrty B in the namc o[ petitioner/del, rl.]nt nnd ir was for. her benellt.

5. Having hear<l tl-re lcarned counscl for thc petition. rlr.lendant and tl.rc Iearned counsel for the responden t / plainti ft, the lr I court .ame to conclusion that thc suit cannot be throlvn away at the tlr ,shold on ()rder vll Rule 11 and found no merits and dismissed the petition. 6. Being aggrieved by thc same, thc present civil rcr,i ; rn petitio, is filecr contending that the trial court cli(l not c.nsider- ., lirct thilt r,hc responden t/ plaintiff had purchased the said propert). i' the .amc of thc petitioner / defendan t benami and it clearlY shon.s that tlr( iame is hit bv thc provisions ol the Bcnami rransactions (prohibition) Act, , ug :rnd the plaint ought to have rejected at the threshold itsetf. It is also r -rher avr:rr-cd that Section 3(2) of the Benami rransactions (prohibition) Acr I 9gg u,orrld apply only in cases where the suits are filed br. third parties ag r .st a pers.n ,r,ho holds the property in the name of his wife or unmarried drrrr 1hter, ben.mi and as such the same is hit by Section 3(2) or thc Act. It is I r ther avcrred thar only to protect the property of wile and unmarried daughtc. against the third parties, tl-re said provision has been excluded from the rig, r.of Scctiorr 4 and *-..r I I I 4 !{t4.1 CRP,No.32a1 of 2015 not for cases wherein a person \vho has cntered into a benami transaction t<; cnforce a right against thc pe rsor.t rn u,hosc nan'rc the property has been hcld bcnami. lt is also aver-red th:rt the tri:rl cor-rrt ought not to have expressed final opinion stating Lhat the transaction rs pcrfecllv valid and not hit by thc provision of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, at the same time holding that plaintiff ought to bc givcn oplrortuttity to adduce evidence in support o[ his contention u,l-tich is itsclI is contrarv and prayed this Court [o allow the revisior-r petition sctting aside tltr: ordcr passed by the trial court.

7. Though the present civil rcvision pctrtion is filed in the year 2015, today it is uoming up lor adnrissiurr.

8. Flaving heard thc learned counscl lirr the petitioner/ defendant at thc admission, this Court is of the opinion that no notice is required to thc respondent/ plaintiff.

9. Having considered thc cntire matcria I on merits, Lhis Court intcnds to dispose the pctition at the admission st.tgc.

10. After considering the cntire matcrial ot-r record, the main grievance o[ the petitioner/ defendant belore this Court and before the trial court in the said LA. is thal the petitioner/ defendan t u,anted ttre trial court to reject thc plaint in hit by the provisions ol thc Ben:rmi Transactions (Prohibition) Act,

1988. Though, the Order VII Rulc 11 '"vl.rich resumes for Iiling the petition under Order VII Rule l1 and the conditions which read as follows: 5 4t4.1 eB!i!o.32q7ef2L1s Order \III Rule 11; 1'he plaint shall be reiecte(l ilr thc follou,ing cases (al rvhere it does not dLsclose a cause ofaction; (b) $,here the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plarnt r rcquired bv the Courr to correct the valuation $,ithin a tim., r, tlle Court, fails to do so: (c) rvhere lhe reliclc]airned is properly valued, brrt tlte plarD. Lrpon paper insul'ticicntly stamped, and the ptaintill, on beilp r llre Court lo sul)pl\ Ilr. rcql[sile stamp paper wi(hin:r liI l)y the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appcars from the statcment in thc plaint r bt' any larr': on bcinq r, fixccl bv i r r'tr lrlled 'r lu it cd ltr o lre fixed lrt.b:trred

11. In these circllmstances, a suit can be reject(:cl irr irt, inc{.ption stllllc itself u'ithout going into t].re trial. 12. Admittedly, lor the purpose of deciding an appricil i ,r underr order vI Rulc 1l; plaint averments arone has to be looked i,to {,r,r th.ro is n, clispute on the said position oflau/. 13. coming to the present application, though the sairr appricatior.r is rrred under Order VII Rule l l and the main contcntion is rnly in rt,spect of contoation that the said suit is barred by the []r r ami rrtrnsactions (Prol-ribition) Act, 1988. 14. On perusal of the material placed, it is i rnitted now the pctitioner/ defendant who is none other than tht. rl:rughter of the re sponden t/ plaintifl ancl it is also an admitt.r lurct that the €-- 6 \ aaB-.1 qB!.Nei2E! eI 291l respondcnt/ plain tiff has purchased three properties which is mentioned in Lhe order and tl-rc said suit schedulc propcrty bcing one of the propertics and it is a specific case of the re sponden t/ p laintLlf that he purchased all thc three propertics for the beneht of his three unrnarried daughters as on the date of purchase. It is the specific case of the rr:sponden t/ plainti lf that the Benami 'I'ransactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is nr,rt applicable to Lhe transaction. During the course of argLlments, the learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant contended that the same is b.rrred by law and as such the said suit has to be rejected.

15. Considering the cntire material placr:cl, as PCr thc pror,'ision of Section 3(2) of thc Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, admittedly as on thc date of purchase, the petitioncr herein is an unmarried daughter and it is contendcd that as per Section I though it protects the transaction r,t'hich are purchased in the name of three pcrsons, but it is contendcd that as per Section 9BA explanation (i) and as per Section 22(1'21 of the Acl, the beneficial owncr and the benamidar is one pcrson and an unmarricd daughter, the learned trial court having considered the entire merits of the said fact had dismissed the petition. The contention of the respondent/ plaintiff is that whether the transaction is a benami Lransaction or not, which is a queslion of fact, which has to be assessed by going into the entire material either oral or documentary and as such on the face of plaint, it cannot be said that it is i I i I I I I I i i ! t i { I I ! : I 7 daa,/ CRP.No.32A1 of 2015 barred by law and that u,ithout deciding whether comes under the provisions of Section 2 or 3 of the Benami Transactions lI roh i bition) Act, 1988 and zrlso to know whcthcr it is hit by section 3 ol thc s i ii1 Act- This court is also oi'thc sinrilar opinion thaL the suit cannot be thro\\'- out at the threshold and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supremc , lourt in the case of Smt.Rebti Devi a. Ram Dutt a.nd a.nother the trail cou L has comc to a righ t conclusion in dismissing the impugned order and this C, trrt is ol the opinion that it needs no interference as such for the said reasor: this Court is o[ the opinion unless the entire trial is conducted, the question L hethcr thc property was purchased lor the benefit of the pe titioner/ defer-rcl r rt or nol c-anr-rot be decidccl. This Court is also of the opinion that the le r rled trial court h:rs righ t11 dismisscd the petition.

16. [n view of the above discussion, this civil revision 1 etition is d ismissecl. As it is seen from the record that the present suit pertain to rhe yenr 20 14 , il is expected that the trial court may conclude the samt rs carl1, :rs possiblc and the plaintift and the defendant shall cooperate with . c court in disposing the matter as early as possible without seeking unnecess: -v adjoumments. 17 . Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall s r nd closed. SD/- K.AMMAJI DEF UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII \ \.c,o* oFFrcER To,

1. Vlll Additional Senror Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Distric 2. One CC to Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] rt L.B.Nagar. ClLtd- ' '

3. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL f<g \ { HIGH COURT DATED:2610812025 \ I .1{o3 . , i)-\ .4 .). tlSt -- :,2 .9 * l ORDER CRP.No.3281 ot 2015 ii'qrcrtr;o- DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETTION _-JK5 rc/,/za /.: .-.. \.. l]76 2 * t T