Pawan Kumar vs Babulal Since Deceased through Lrs. and Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

2 April 2019

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 3367 of 2019

Result

Allowed

Bench

Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra

Citation

[2019] 5 S.C.R. 1141 : 2019 INSC 454

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

Or. VII r.11 – Application under – In a suit for declaration of title – Seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit was barred u/s. 4 of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act – Trial Court allowing the application rejected the plaint – High Court upheld the order of trial court – On appeal, plea that the case was covered by s. 4(3) of the Benami Transaction Act – Held: The question whether the plaint was barred u/s. 4 of the Act or not could not have been subject matter of assessment at the stage when application u/Or. VII r.11 was taken up – The matter required fuller and final consideration after the evidence was led by the parties – Application u/Or. VII r.11 is dismissed.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : In the present case, the controversy has arisen in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Whether the matter comes within the purview of Section 4(3) of the Benanmi Transaction Act is an aspect which must be gone into on the strength of the evidence on record. Going by the averments in the Plaint, the question whether the plea raised by the appellant is barred under Section 4 of the Act or not could not have been the subject matter of assessment at the stage when application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was taken up for consideration. The matter required fuller and final consideration after the evidence was led by the parties. It cannot be said that the plea of the appellant as raised on the face of it, was barred under the Act. The approach must be to proceed on a demurrer and see whether accepting the averments in the plaint, the suit is barred by any law or not. [Para 13][1151-F-H; 1152-A] Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association (2005) 7 SCC 510 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 1030 – relied on.

Om Prakash and Another v. Jai Prakash (1992) 1 SCC

710 : [1992] 1 SCR 15 – distinguished.

Marcel Martins v. M. Printer and Others (2012) 5 SCC 342 : [2012] 5 SCR 480 ; R. Rajgopal Reddy through LRs.v. Padmini Chandrasekharaiah

through LRs. (1995) 2 SCC 630 : [1995] 1 SCR 715 – referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal questions the final judgment and order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBRFA No.511 of 2016. 3. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title with respect to premises in Kasba Fatehpur’s main market which were more particularly described in the plaint and prayed that he be declared owner of the premises and that the sale deed dated 24.07.2006 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant be cancelled. The material averm

View Subscription Plans →