R.S.A.No.4842 of 2009(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.4842 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 7.4.2011 Peush Kumar ......Appellant Versus Sher Jang .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Aman Bahri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.S.S.Godara, Advocate for respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was owner of the suit land. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plot in dispute was purchased by his father in the name of Sher Jang and agricultural land was purchased by the father of the plaintiff in the name of Arjan Lal and Sher Jang. Arjan Lal and Sher Jang were brothers of father of the plaintiff. On 22.12.1981, father of the plaintiff died. The defendant executed an agreement dated 17.10.1982 vide which he gave the ownership and possessory rights of the suit R.S.A.No.4842 of 2009(O&M) 2 property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. The defendant had, however, failed to transfer the plot and the land in the name of the plaintiff. Defendant in his written statement averred that the father of the plaintiff had been murdered in the year 1981. The suit land was purchased by the defendant vide sale deeds dated 16.8.1977 and 17.4.1972. The father of the plaintiff had no concern with the suit property. The agreement dated 17.10.1982 was not admissible in evidence as it was not a registered document. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property? OPP. 2. Whether the defendant has executed agreement in dispute and admitted plaintiff's claim ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 4.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct ? OPD 7. Whether suit of the plaintiff is time barred ? OPD 8. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 9. Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of R.S.A.No.4842 of 2009(O&M) 3 necessary parties. 10. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 29.8.2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.4.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit land had been purchased by his father in the names of his brothers i.e. defendant Sher Jang and Arjan Lal. However, the said plea of the plaintiff was rightly rejected by the Courts below as after coming into force of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short), no suit could be filed in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property exists. Section 4 of the Act reads as under:- “Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami .- (1) No suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. (2) No defence based on any right in respect of any R.S.A.No.4842 of 2009(O&M) 4 property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. (3) Nothing in this section shall apply,-- (a) where the person in whose name the property is held is a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family and the property is held for the benefit of the coparceners in the family; or (b) where the person in whose name the property is held is a trustee or other person standing in a fiduciary capacity, and the property is held for the benefit of another person for whom he is a trustee or towards whom he stands in such capacity.” Thus, the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the suit of the plaintiff was covered under Section 4 (3) (b) of the Act is without any force as in the present case there is nothing on record to suggest that the property was held as a trustee by the defendant. The sale deeds are in the favour of defendant Sher Jang and his brother Arjan Lal. Hence, the plaintiff cannot claim any right, title or interest in the suit property on the plea that the suit property was purchased by his father on his behalf in favour of the defendant and Arjan Lal. Although the possession of the suit property is with the plaintiff yet in view of Section 4 (1) of the Act, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to fail. The plaintiff also cannot claim any benefit on the basis of agreement dated 17.10.1982 Ex.P-1 as R.S.A.No.4842 of 2009(O&M) 5 the said document is not a registered document. A property worth more than ` 100/- can be transferred only by way of a registered document. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 07, 2011 anita