The Trial Court rejected the stand taken by the appellants and decreed the suit and the decree came to be confirmed both by the First Appellate Court and the High Court. The first ground of attack is premised on an order passed by the Departmental Officer, Ambikapur on 03.02.1983, in terms of Section 170 of the Code declaring the sale deed dated 02.04.1981 executed by Phool Chand in favour of respondent No.1 (plaintiff) to be fraudulent and benami and in violation of Section 165 of the 3 said Code. It is true that under Section 165(6c), the Collector is entitled to go into the question whether the transaction is spurious or benami. In fact, the Trial Court framed an issue on the question of possession and found that respondent No.1 had constructed a house on the property and that his sons are living there. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, the bar of jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Code relates to any matter which the Authorities are empowered to determine/decide or dispose of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Case Title: KHORA (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS Vs. MOHAR SAI (2023 INSC 142)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001233-001233 / 2023
