R.S.A. No. 534 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 534 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.1.2011 Manmohan Singh @ Mohan Singh ......Appellant Versus Mukhbir Singh and another .......Respondents ********* CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that his father owned land in village Dhotian. His father sold some portion of land and also mortgaged some portion of the agricultural land so as to purchase land in village Balauli, i.e. land in dispute. Plaintiff purchased 400 kanals, 14 marlas of agricultural land vide sale deeds dated 12.8.1959 and 24.11.1959 from Desh Raj. In the said sale deed Gango Devi, mother of the defendant, was stated to have purchased 1/4th share whereas the defendant had allegedly purchased 1/4th share and the remaining half share had been purchased by Jai Singh, father of the plaintiff. In fact, the names of the R.S.A. No. 534 of 2010 (O&M) 2 defendant and his mother were entered as benami, whereas the father of the plaintiff was the real owner of the suit land. Gango Devi returned her share by executing a gift deed dated 25.4.1966 in favour of Jai Singh. Jai Singh executed a Will dated 25.5.1970 in favour of the plaintiff. After the death of Jai Singh plaintiff had become owner of the suit property. Hence, suit for declaration has been filed by the plaintiff. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint and it was averred that defendant had purchased 25 acres, 7 marlas of land from Desh Raj vide sale deeds in his own name and in the name of his mother. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 100K-3M as fully detailed and described in the heading of the plaint ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of P1 restraining the defendant from interfering in actual, physical possession of the plaintiff over the suit land ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of 25 rule 1 CPC ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable and is bared under the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 ? OPD R.S.A. No. 534 of 2010 (O&M) 3 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is legally estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit ? OPD. 8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred ? OPD. 9. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit ? OPD. 10.Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 16.9.2005, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 5.9.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 reads as under :- “4. 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.” Thus, as per the above provision no suit can be filed to enforce any right in a property held benami against the person in whose name the R.S.A. No. 534 of 2010 (O&M) 4 property is held. In these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to fail as he could not raise the plea of benami transactions. Moreover, the suit was filed after a long delay as the sale-deeds were executed in the year 1959 whereas the suit was filed in the year 2005. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 20, 2011 Anand