A.D.Koshal, J. - (1.) THE suit out of which this petition under section 118(sic) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Plaintiff has arisen was for possession by partition of a half share in the property alleged to be jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The suit was filed on the 8th of August 1972. During the pendency, on the 15th of November 1972, Section 281 -A was added to the Income -Tax Act. On the 2nd of September, 1975 the Plaintiff made an application under Rule 10 of Order 1, Rule 17 of Order 6, and section, 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the plaint and addition of three persons as party Defendants or the plea that they were holding part of the property in suit benami. By the impugned order the learned trial Judge has dismissed the application holding that the provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 281 -A of the Income -Tax Act are a bar thereto.
(2.) THE provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 281 -A are reproduced below for facility of reference: 281 -A.(1) No suit to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a person (hereafter in this section referred to as the claimant) claiming to the real owner of such property unless, - (a) The income, if any from such property has been disclosed in any return of income furnished by the claimant under this Act; or (b) Such property has been disclosed in any return of net wealth furnished by the claimant under the Wealth -tax Act, 1957 (37 of 1957); or (c) Notice in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars in respect of the property has been given by the claimant to the Income -tax Officer. It is common ground between the parties that the requirements of none of the Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Sub -section are fulfilled in the present case. The sole contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, there, is that the suit was instituted before Section 281 -A was added to the Income Tax Act, that the section is not retrospective in operation and does not apply to pending suits, and that it is also inapplicable to applications for amendment of plaints. The contention has no force. In so far as the plaint, in its present form goes, it has nothing to do with any property held benami. It is by the proposed amendment that the Plaintiff seeks to enforce a right in respect of such property against person whose names are being sought to be added after the enforcement of the section. In so far as those persons are concerned, the suit will clearly be instituted against them after the enforcement of the section. The word "instituted" has to be read in context in which it appears. In my opinion it is not intended merely to cover the handing in of a plaint but denotes the initiation of proceedings against particular persons and in respect of a specified type of property, that is, property held benami. In this connection reference may be made to the meanings of the word 'institute" as given by Webster in his Third New International Dictionary. Such meanings, inter alia, are "to originate set up...cause to come into existence......to set on foot inaugurate, initiate....." >As against the persons sought to be added, the proceedings cannot be said to have been initiated till now and if the section is given its plain meaning, there is no running away from the proposition that the section was rightly held to be a bar to the application made by the Plaintiff.
(3.) IN the result, the petition is dismissed with costs.;