VIJAY KUMAR & ANR. versus DHARAM PAL & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 10-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
[2009) 2 S.C.R. 1 
VIJAY KUMAR & ANR. 
v 
DHARAM PAL & ORS. 
Civil Appeal No. 854 Of 2009 
FEBRUARY 10, 2009 
A 
B 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Possession - Suit for possession - Plea of defendants 
that the property in question was purchased benami in the 
name of plaintiff and the defendants themselves were the real 
owners - Trial Court negated the plea of benami on ground . C 
that such plea was not available after enactment of the Act, 
and upon considering the evidence led by the parties, came 
to a finding that the plaintiff owned the suit property and de-
creed the suit - Order upheld by First Appellate Court and 1 
1 
High Court - Held: The Courts below erred in applying the D 
provisions of the Act to the suit, since it had been filed prior to 
coming into effect of the Act - Howev,.er, de hors the question 
of applicability of the Act, the Courts below were right in hold-
ing that the plaintiff was owner of the suit property in view of the 
evidence adduced by him - Appeal accordingly dismissed .:..:. 
E 
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - s.4 - Applica-
bility of., 
Respondent no.1 filed suit for possession contend-
ing that he had purchased the property in question and 
owned it. Appellants claimed that .the property was pur-
F 
chased benami in the name of respondent no.1 and the 
appellants themselves were the real owners. Trial Court 
negated the plea of benami on the ground that such plea 
was not available after enactment of the Benami Transac-
tions (Prevention) Act, 1988, and upon considering the 
G 
evidence led by the parties, came to a finding that respon-
dent no.1 owned the suit property and decreed the suit. 
The order was upheld by both the First Appellate Court. 
and the High C<?urt. Hence the present appeal. 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Since the point regarding the applicabil-
t-
' 
ity of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition~ Act, 1988, to 
the suit has been conceded on behalf of the respondent 
B No.1 in favour of the appellants, the same need not de-
tain this Court, except to state that the trial Court, the first 
appellate Court and the High Court had erred in applying 
the provisions of the Act to the suit, since it had been filed 
prior to the coming into effect of the Act. [Para 16] [ 7- E] 
-+ 
c 
1.2. However, de hors the question of the applicabil-
ity of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the 
Courts below had rightly held that the- respondent No.1 
was the owner of the suit properties relying on the docu-
) 
mentary and oral evidepce adduced by him, including an 
D agreement (Exhibit PW3/3) executed by the appellants and 
th.e respondent no.1 which was proved as mentioned in 
t 
the judgment of the trial Court. [Para 17] [ 7-G, H] 
1.3. Consequently, even while holding that the Courts 
E below, including the High Court, had erred in applying the 
provisions of the Act to the suit of the respondent No.1, 
the appeal must fail on the ground that in addition to the ·-· 
above, the Courts had found the respondent No.1 to be 
the owner of the suit properties on the basis of the evi-
dence adduced by him, which finding was not disturbed 
i 
F by any. of the Courts below. [Para 18] [ 8-A, B ] 
R. Rajagopal Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. Padmini 
Chandrasekharan (dead) by L.Rs. AIR (1996) SC 238 - re-
ferred to. 
G 
Case Law Reference 
~ 
AIR (1996) SC 238 
referred to 
Para 13 
.... 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 854 
H of 2009 
VIJAY KUMAR & ANR. V DHARAM PAL & ORS. 
3 
~ 
-'I 
From the final Judgement and Order dated 3.5.2006 of A 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. 
No. 244 of 1998 
R.K. Dhawan, Rahul Gaur, M.A. Chinnasamy, Preetam 
Shah and Kishan Kumar, for the Appellant. 
B 
Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deora, Mohit Abraham and 
T.S. Sataush (for M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co.}, for the Respondent. 
+ 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. 
c 
1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal has been listed after notice had been served 
on the Respondent No.1 and learned counsel has entered ap-
pearance and has filed counter affidavit on his behalf. 
D 
1 
3. One Dharam Pal, Respondent No.1 herein, filed a suit 
for possession by claiming that he had purchased two proper-
ties situated at Nakodar by two conveyances dated 24th April, 
1959 and 12
1
h June, 1959. It is his further case that having raised 
E 
constructions in the sa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.