Benami Transactions Act - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court ruled that Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be invoked to reject a partition suit based on the Benami Act when plaint averments describe properties as joint family assets. Whether properties are benami or fall under exceptions (Section 2(9)(A)) requires evidence. Section 4’s bar applies only to proven benami transactions, not disputed claims requiring trial. Facts Of The Case: The dispute involved a family partition suit (Regular Suit No. 630A/2018) filed by Vidya Devi Gupta (mother) and Sudeep Gupta (younger son) against Sandeep Gupta (elder son), his wife Shaifali Gupta, and their children, along with subsequent property purchasers Deepak Lalchandani and Surya Prakash Mishra. The plaintiffs claimed that multiple properties acquired in individual family members’ names – in...

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the dismissal of the partition suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, emphasizing that the court can dismiss a suit based on admissions without a formal application. It ruled that the decrees from prior suits, which were never challenged, conclusively determined the ownership of the properties, barring any fresh claims. The Court held that the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, did not apply as the properties were partitioned before the cutoff date of 20th December 2004. Additionally, the suit for Anand Niketan house was barred by limitation, and the claims lacked sufficient pleadings to establish an HUF or coparcenary rights. The judgment reinforced the finality of unappealed decrees and the necessity of precise pleadings in pa...

Tag: Benami Transactions Act

Supreme Court: Joint Family Property Disputes Need Evidence, Not Quick Rejection

Supreme Court Clarifies HUF Property Partition Rights: Rejects Daughter’s Claim Due to Prior Settlements