Case Note & Summary
The present Civil Appeal arises from a suit for declaration of ownership of agricultural properties based on a Will dated 20.04.2018, allegedly executed by one K. Raghunath in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The appellants, who are the defendants in the suit, claim that the properties were self-acquired by late K. Raghunath and were bequeathed to appellant No.1 under an earlier registered Will dated 28.01.2016. The respondent/plaintiff asserts that he is the real owner of the properties, having financed their purchase, and that late K. Raghunath was merely a name-lender. The trial court, on an application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, rejected the plaint by order dated 30.10.2023, holding that it disclosed no cause of action and was barred under Sections 4 and 6 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The High Court, in Regular First Appeal No. 2216 of 2023, reversed this decision on 22.02.2024, finding that the averments in the plaint did not attract the provisions of the Benami Act and restoring the suit for adjudication on merits. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. By order dated 08.04.2024, the Supreme Court issued notice to the respondent and stayed further proceedings in the restored suit. In the Supreme Court, the appellants contend that a meaningful reading of the plaint and annexed documents reveals a benami transaction, as the plaintiff himself claims to have provided consideration and placed the property in the name of the deceased. They argue that the relationship of employer-employee cannot constitute a fiduciary relationship under Section 2(9)(A)(ii) of the Benami Act, and that the suit is barred by Section 45 of the said Act. The legal question centers on whether the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, given the prohibition on benami transactions. The Supreme Court’s analysis and final determination remain pending; the matter is yet to be decided on merits.
Issue of Consideration
The principal question arising for consideration is whether, on a reading of the plaint as a whole, the properties claimed by the Respondent / Plaintiff are admittedly benami properties within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Benami Act, thereby attracting the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 45 and rendering the plaint liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Case Details
2026 LawText (SC) (05) 21
Civil Appeal No. 7370 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7924 of 2024)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration of ownership of properties based on a Will, with an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Remedy Sought
Defendants sought rejection of the plaint at the threshold; plaintiff sought declaration of ownership and injunction.
Filing Reason
The plaintiff claimed to be the real owner of properties despite them standing in the name of the deceased; defendants argued the suit was a benami transaction barred by law.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court rejected the plaint on 30.10.2023; High Court reversed and restored the suit on 22.02.2024.
Issues
Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC on the ground that it discloses no cause of action and is barred by Sections 4 and 6 of the Benami Act.
Whether the properties claimed are benami properties within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Benami Act, attracting the bar under Section 45.
Whether the employer-employee relationship can be treated as a fiduciary relationship to attract the exception under Section 2(9)(A)(ii) of the Benami Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The plaint, read as a whole, reveals a benami arrangement where the plaintiff provided consideration and the deceased held the property as an ostensible owner, and the suit is barred under the Benami Act.
The High Court erred by failing to undertake a meaningful reading of the plaint and confining itself to the absence of express terminology like 'benami'.
The documents annexed to the plaint show that the sale deeds reflect consideration paid by late K. Raghunath, which reinforces the statutory presumption against the plaintiff’s claim.
The relationship of employer-employee does not constitute a fiduciary relationship under the Benami Act, and no such relationship has been pleaded in the plaint.
The statutory bar under Section 45 of the Benami Act ousts civil court jurisdiction, making the plaint liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
the principal question arising for consideration is whether, on a reading of the plaint as a whole, the properties claimed by the Respondent / Plaintiff are admittedly benami properties within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Benami Act, thereby attracting the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 45 and rendering the plaint liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
the relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased, namely that of employer and employee, cannot by any stretch of legal reasoning be construed as a fiduciary relationship so as to attract the exception carved out under Section 2(9)(A)(ii) of the Benami Act.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed OS No. 246 of 2020 seeking declaration and injunction. The defendants applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint on 30.10.2023. On appeal, the High Court reversed and restored the suit on 22.02.2024. The Supreme Court granted leave and issued notice on 08.04.2024, staying further trial court proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VII Rule 11(a), Order VII Rule 11(d), Order XIV Rule 2
- Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (Benami Act): Section 2(9), Section 4, Section 6, Section 45
- Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016:
