“Suit Cannot be Dismissed on Grounds of Benami Act,” says Delhi High Court
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court recently delivered a landmark judgment, allowing a suit for declaration of title and ownership of a property to proceed despite objections raised by the defendant. The judgment, pronounced by Justice Mini Pushkarna on August 3rd, 2023, sheds light on the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act and the Limitation Act, 1963, and the validity of alleged admissions and suppression of facts by the plaintiff.
The court rejected the defendant’s contention that the suit was barred by the Benami Act, emphasizing that the determination of a benami transaction requires thorough consideration of various tests and circumstances as laid down by the Supreme Court. The court pointed out that the question of benami transactions can only be resolved through evidence presented by the parties and cannot be dismissed at the initial stage.
Regarding the contention raised by the defendant that the suit was barred by limitation, the court explained that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and it should be examined based on evidence presented by both parties. The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment, stating that the cause of action under the Limitation Act accrues only when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or threatened to be infringed.
Justice Pushkarna further clarified that the strength or weakness of the plaintiff’s case on merit cannot be considered at this stage, and the defense raised by the defendant in the written statement is irrelevant for adjudication under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court held that only the plaintiff’s pleadings are relevant to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.
The court also emphasized that a plaint cannot be rejected in part; it must be rejected as a whole. This ruling was based on the court’s findings in earlier cases and established legal principles.
Regarding the issue of alleged admissions made by the plaintiff, the court ruled that such admissions can be explained during the trial and must be confronted during cross-examination. The court stated that the effect of any suppression of material facts by the plaintiff must also be examined during the trial.
Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant’s application to reject the plaint, affirming that there is a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff. The court clarified that its ruling does not express any opinion on the merits of the case, and the final adjudication will be done after a thorough examination of evidence during the trial.
Date of Decision: August 03rd, 2023
PARMOD KUMAR JAIN vs SATISH JAIN & ORS
