The High Court allowed a civil revision petition under Article 227. It held that the pleadings in a partition suit, showing contribution by one party with the property registered in another's name, amounted to a benami transaction bar, striking off the suit.
Revision petition allowed; impugned order dated 03.08.2015 set aside; suit struck off.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP(PD).No.2992 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
[ORDERS RESERVED ON : 29.09.2022]
[ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 28.10.2022]
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
CRP (PD).No.2992 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.15100 of 2016
V.Thangavel ....Petitioner
.. Vs ..
1.P.V.Nachimuthu 2.S.Saroja ...Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow the C.R.P., setting aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankagiri dated 03.08.2015 in I.A.No.220 of 2014 in O.S.No.184 of 2013 an to order the said I.A as prayed for.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Hariharan
For R1 : Mr.R.Marudhachala Murthy
For R2 : No appearance
CRP(PD).No.2992 of 2016
O R D E R
This petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankagiri dated 03.08.2015 made in I.A.No.220 of 2014 in O.S.No.184 of 2013.
herein.
3.The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.184 of 2013 seeking partition of the schedule property on the ground that the first respondent and the petitioner and the second respondent are brothers and sisters and there was a family partition among the petitioner herein and the first defendant herein and their mother on 04.02.1987 and the subject matter of the suit covered under the said partition deed. Further contended that the first respondent and the petitioner herein jointly contributed money towards the purchase of half share in the suit property while the second respondent/second defendant has contributed 50% of the suit property and thereafter they put up 9 shops and the door number of the terraced shops are 1/309,
CRP(PD).No.2992 of 2016
1/310 and 1/311; the door numbers of the six asbestos rooms are
1/311, 1/312, 1/313, 1/314, 1/315 and 1/316. The terraced shops and the asbestos roof rooms were rented. The plaintiff and the defendants were receiving the rent and shared the same and hence filed a suit for partition claiming 1/4th share of the property.
CRP(PD).No.2992 of 2016
pleadings in avoiding the nature of the claim.
CRP(PD).No.2992 of 2016
CRP(PD).No.2992 of 2016
1st respondent is that the petition for rejection of the plaint was filed. in the month of February 2014 and written statement was filed only in the month of April 2014. The application for rejection of the plaint being filed before the written statement does not hold good and hence, the said contention could not be countenanced.
CRP(PD).No.2992 of 2016
28.10.2022
Internet :Yes nvi
To
1.The Sub-Court, Sankagiri. 2.V.R.Records, High Court,Madras.
CRP(PD).No.2992 of 2016 RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
nvi
Order made in CRP (PD).No.2992 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.15100 of 2016
28.10.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit for partition of property where the sale deed is in one name but contributed funds were by another constitutes a benami transaction under the Benami Act.
Whether such a suit is barred under Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(none cited in this order)Referred
3 provisions across 3 enactments
V.Thangavel
P.V.Nachimuthu
S.Saroja
RMT Teekaa Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
RMT Teekaa Raman
Parties & counsel
