Chhotelal And Others Vs Moolchand Lodhi And Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the appeal against the order dated 30.06.2014 by which the trial court had allowed the application of respondent/defendant no. 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the suit as barred by Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
The suit concerned property purchased in 1976 in the name of defendant no. 1, who was the plaintiff’s eldest son. The plaintiff asserted that the property had been purchased from the nucleus of joint family income and therefore constituted joint family property. Defendant no. 1 subsequently sold the property to defendant no. 2 in 2009, following which the plaintiff sought declarations concerning the joint family character of the property and the sale deed.
The appellant contended that the plaint did not assert a Benami transaction and that the property was claimed as joint family property. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the transaction fell within the prohibition contained in Section 4 of the Act of 1988.
The High Court examined the definition of “benami transaction” under Section 2(9) and observed that the plaint assertions and documents did not disclose the 1976 transaction to be a Benami transaction. The Court noted the exclusions contained in Section 2(9), including those relating to joint family property and specified property held in the name of a spouse or child from known sources.
