1 2025:CGHC:10025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 112 of 2024 • Laxminarayan Jaiswal S/o Late Motilal Jaiswal Aged About 68 Years R/o Sees, Tehsil- Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o House No. 196, Sanjay Nagar Balco, Dondro, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 1) ... Applicant versus 1. Satyanarayan Jaiswal S/o Late Motilal Jaiswal Aged About 60 Years R/o New Bus Stand Road, Pali, Tehsil- Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) 2. Loknarayan Jaiswal S/o Late Moti Lal Jaiswal Employee/office Of Collector, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 2) 3. Smt. Sumitra Bai W/o Shri Jeevan Lal R/o Ramdei, P.O.- Sees, Tehsil- Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 3) 4. Smt. Champa Bai W/o Late Motilal Jaiswal R/o New Bus Stand Road, Pali, Tehsil- Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 4) 5. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 5) ... Respondent(s) PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.02.28 16:23:40 +0530 2 For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1: Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. S.K. Puria, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 28/02/2025 1. This Revision has been filed assailing the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Place Pali, District Korba (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.14-A/2021, whereby the application preferred by the appellant/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In the said Suit, the appellant has raised an objection that the Suit is barred under Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act, 1988”). Learned trial Court observed that the plaintiff has made an averment that the Suit property was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of father and he has constructed a house on it and also made an averment that a family partition took place on 17.09.2017 and the subject property was allotted to his share. A plea of adverse possession was also raised. So, the plaintiff has taken various pleas claiming title on the subject property and the same shall be enquired during the trial and dismissed the application. Hence, this Revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the Suit property was purchased in the name of father and after the commencement of 3 the Act, 1988, the Suit is not maintainable in view of Section 4 of the Act, 1988. Lastly, he places reliance in the matter of Dukhiya Bai and another vs. Pheruram Verma and others passed in Civil Revision No.13/2018 vide the order dated 15.11.2018. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that benami transaction has been defined under Section 2(9) of the Act, 1988, wherein exception (i) a Karta, or a member of a Hindu undivided family, as the case may be, and the property is held for his benefit or benefit of other members in the family and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid out of the known sources of the Hindu undivided family, therefore, he would submit that at the time of purchase, the plaintiff is the member of the Hindu undivided family and he has purchased the property in the name of father. Therefore, such a transaction is not hit by benami transaction. He would further submit that even otherwise, the subject property was given on partition in the share of plaintiff, therefore, the present Suit is maintainable in its present form as the Suit is at the initial stage and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Revision carefully. 6. Perusal of the averments made in the plaint shows that plaintiff has taken a different plea for establishing title and also made an averment inter alia that he is in possession of the subject property and the relief of permanent injunction has also been sought. As the Suit is at the 4 initial stage, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff cannot be non-suited at this stage for the grounds taken by the appellant/defendant. 7. For the foregoing, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the said order. 8. Resultantly, this Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka