6J0 rW HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SEO AVP’” Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb DeshlhulEh, J. APPELLANT jAiv‘Wvh‘v v V: V 1 A‘ PLAINTIFF Subhashchandra Ghosh, Slo. Shti DB. Ghosh, Aged at present about 55 years, Rio Tikarapara, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Ku.'smela Ghosh. s/o_ Late smi DB. 'Ghosh, Teacher, Holycross School! Ralpurr(CG) Smt. Doly Bose. W/o. Abhijeet Bose, , f ‘ "Opp. Maharashtra Manda], Tikarapara k Bilaspur (CG) ’ _ Smt D’e'epaILBose, W/o. Sapan Kumar Bose. Assistant Engineer, Nagat Nigam, Raipur (CG). 4. PR. Ghosh, S/o. D.B. Ghosh, Qtr No.‘ I MIG-222, Padmnabl'ipur, District-Dug (CG) smt. Ena Osborn, Wio. Shri E. Osborn, 'R/o. Railway Qtr. No. 1309, Wireless Coiony, Tarbahar Biiaspur. Smt. R. Sarkar, ’W/o. Dr. P.K. Dey. Iv Sarkar, Efrovilla Mannu Chowk,’ Tikarapara, Biiaspur'(CG). ’ ' Smt. Leenadas, W/o. Shri SR. Das, i Through: Opp. State Bank of india, Tikarapara, Bilaspur (6G) n 8. 1. Smt. Annapurna Ghosh, Wlo. Late Shri M.R. Ghosh, Age-45 years, Ghosh, Age-22 years. 2. Suma’n Ghosh, Dlo. Late M.R. 3. Ku. Megha Ghesh, Dlo. Late MR. Ghosh, Age-22 years. ' All’3 are Rlo. Mission Hospital Compound, ldgaha Chowk, ’Bilaspur’(CG) Shri. S.R. Ghosh, Slo. DB. $hosh Through-Edwani Elaoone Company chinu Mistra, wro. RN. Mitra, Makan NO. C-38. Sector-6. Rourkella-3 ” Orrisee. r 4» /' \ ' . A Limited ~Bhopal \ , . , . g! 11. chitram'an Ghosh. 3% D.B. Ghosh. atr. , No. 64/92, Orient pup” mm; pate Brijrajnagar,Di5trict-Sundergarh Orissa).. '12. Dilip Ranjan Ghosh, $10.7 D.B. Ghosh; R/o. Tikarapara. Bilaspur, Opp. ‘ Maharashtra Mandal, Bilaspur (CG) I 13.» NR. Ghosh. 3/0. DB. Ghosh, Reporter, ‘Railway _ Station-Champa; ' District- ' BHaspur (Now-JanjkChampa). The state of Chhattisgarh, Through : J District Collector. Tahsil & Distriat? Bilaspur (CG) ’ ' Present: shri $anjay Patel, leamed counsel for the appellant. Shri U. Bharat, learned counsel for the respondents; Shri Akhil Agrawal, Ptfor State. DRAL ORDER (Passed. on 29‘" March. 2007) . Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2005. l passed by the Additional District Judge. Bilaspur in. Civil AppeaLNo. 4-A of 2001 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2001 passed by Sixth Civil Judge Class-ll Bilaspur in 6ivil Suit No.16-A- of; 2000, the appellant/plaintiff has. preferred this appeal. L 2. Heard on admission. 3. Learned counsei for the appellant made atwo—fold submission:- , a) In view of Section 4? (2) of the Benami transaction (Prohibition ’, Act) a 1%8 (hereinafter referred‘to as the .‘Act’). the . defence that the transaction of purchase ‘of the suit house on 3.12.1960Jwas Benami was notavailable to D.B. Ghosh. On facts, the finding recorded by both the Courts below that the transaction of purchase of the suit house on 3.12.1 960 by / D.B. Ghosh in the namehof his wife was Benarni was perverse. No other point was. urged in this appeal. . 1 ' $¢ 4. Learned counsel for the/appellant did not dispute the following fads relevant for adjudication of the grounds urged inthis appeal :- N, that the suit iand was‘purchased in the name of Sudha Rani Ghosh on 3 12 1960 Bl that D B Ghosh had constructed a house on the suit land CI that Sudha Rani Ghosh died on 13.1 .1 979. D/ that the consideration of the said purchase 'was paid by DB. Ghoeh. husband of Sudha Rani Ghosh out of his self acquired funds. ‘ E/ that after death of'Sudha Rani Ghosh. the suit property‘was recorded ln the name of Deenbandhu Ghosh who was in 'possessionv thereof. Fl that the suit was tiled on 11.4.1988 whereas the Act came into force on 19.5.1988. GI that DB. Ghosh had executw a registered will deed of his self acquired property in favour of his daughter namely Ku. Shreeia Ghosh. respondent No. 1. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appeliant, l have perused the record. It is not disputed that the civil sult’was filed‘on 11.4.1988 Le. before the Act came‘into force. In R, Relegpggl Rwy Vs, Padmini Chandrasekharan AIR 1996 SC 238 it was held that Sub-section \(1) of section 4 of the Act cannot be applied to a suit to enforce any right In property held Benami against person in whose name such property Is held or any other person If such proceeding is initialed by or on behalf of r ' a person claiming, to be real owner thereof, prlor to coming Into force of Sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act. ln view of the fact thatthe suit was instituted prior to coming into force of the Act, the defence that the transactionwas Benami in nature was available to DB. Ghosh on the date of suit and ‘therefore in view of the Apex Court’s judgment in V l i i RRajagopaI Raddy (supra) the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant fails. 6. So far as the seeond contentlon Is concerned It Is not disputed that the conSIderatIon for purchasmg the suit land was paid by D B Ghosh It is also not disputed that D B Ghosh had constructed a house on the suit land. It Is also not disputed that D.B. Ghosh was m possession of the suit property and the same was also mutated ln his name after Sudha Rani’s death. it is further not disputed‘that the suit 4 property was purchased by D B Ghosh from his seif acquired funds l the light of these facts and the gurdelmes laid down by the Apex Court m ’ Vallrammgl Vs Subgmamgm and om 2004 AIR SCW 4948 the purchase of the suit house by D B Ghosh in the name of Sudha Rani . Ghosh was rightly held to be a Benamr transaction. Both the Courts r below have recorded a concurrent findin of fact that the registered sale deed dated 3 12 1960 in the name of Sudha Rani Ghosh was a Benaml i transaction Such a fnding being a finding of fact and also in conformuy With the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Valliammal’s case (supra) cannot be faulted With ln this View of the matter l am of the t considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission There shall be no order as to costs d—/ 1 Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh E Judge r