JUDGMENT
N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This is plaintiff’s Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Sirsa, whereby the relief partly granted by the Subordinate Judge, too, was declined.
2. Briefly put, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner of possession of double-storeyed house situated at Sirsa, as per details given in the heading of the plaint, which she purchased vide sale deed dated 8-9-1959 from one Shrimati Man Kaur. She further prayed that decree dated 28.5.1975 as amended on 22.9.1979, passed in Civil Suit No. 502 of 1975 titled ‘Prem Chand v. Tharia Ram’ is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The plea of the plaintiff was that in fact she purchased the house in dispute for a valuable consideration of Rs. 7500/- and, thus, was the real purchaser of the same, contending thereby that defendant No. 2 Tharia Ram was only a benami and as such had no right to transfer this property in favour of Prem Chand-defendant No. 1.
3. Defendant No. 1 put in appearance and controverted various averments made in the plaint. He specifically averred that defendant No. 2, Tharia Ram was real owner of the house who purchased the same by paying consideration and, thus, denied the benami nature of the transaction.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is the real purchaser of the house in dispute and Tharia Ram was the Benamidar ?
2 Whether the decree dated 28.5.1975 in Civil Suit No. 502 is not binding on the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside as alleged in para 8 of the plaint ?
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ?
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by her act and conduct ?
6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi ?
7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction ?
8. Whether Civil Court at Sirsa, has no jurisdiction ?
9. Whether the plaintiff has not given proper description of defendant No. 1 ?
If so its effect ?
10. Relief.”
5. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.4.1981 decreed the claim of the plaintiff with regard to ownership of the house in dispute but declined her claim with regard to the agricultural land-subject matter of the suit, situated at Bhuna.
6 Feeiing dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff as well as defendant Prem Singh filed appeals which were disposed of by the District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 9.4.1983. The District Judge, whereas reversed the findings of the trial Court in respect of issue No. 1 ; thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in to to, accepted the appeal of Prem Chand defendant, Hence this Regular Second Appeal.
7. The plaintiff has claimed ownership of the house on the basis of sale deed dated 8 9.1959. As per her own averment, the sale deed was executed by Shrimati Man Kaur in favour of defendant No. 2 Tharia Ram her father, that is to say Tharia Ram held this property as benami Whether a suit for declaration that certain property is held benami by the defendant can be filed in view of the prohibition contained in Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act (45 of 1988) is the sole point for consideration in this appeal. Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act prohibits the right to recover property held benami Section 4 specifically prescribes that no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. This being the position, suit as such is not maintainable Whether the prohibition as envisaged by the said Act would apply to the pending cases as well was subject-matter of adjudication before the apex Court in Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare, A.I.R. 1989 S.C.1247 wherein it has been held that subsequent events can be taken note of by the Appellate Court and in this view of the matter such a suit would not be maintainable in view of retroactive operation of the Act.
8. Consequently I find no merit in this appeal and hereby dismiss the same. Parties to bear their own costs.