Benami TransactiONS

Recent Updates

Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – That the property was purchased in the name of the father by the plaintiff out of sale consideration provided by the plaintiff as a token of respect of his father – Plea of the suit property being 'benami' set up by the appellant is not applicable – Even no account/cheque book or any statement of bank account have been brought on record from where it could transpire that the money for purchasing the suit property had actually been provided out of the funds of the plaintiff - It has come on record by way of evidence that the property in question was self acquired property. . (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 

 

 

Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988) Section 4(3) – Makes it clear that where a person in whose name a property is held as coparcener in a Hindu Undivided Family and the property is held for the benefits of the coparcener in the property, provisions of Section 4 containing prohibition of the right to recover the property held benami would not be applicable - The bar of the Act is not applicable to a transaction as contained in section 4(3) (a) and (b) - If the property is held in fiduciary capacity or is held as a trustee for the benefits of another person for whom he is a trustee or towards whom he stands in such capacity.  (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER (S.C.)


  • Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988) - Transaction of sale prior to coming into force of the Act - Is not hit by the prohibition as the operation of the Act is prospective in nature.       (180) P.L.R.
  • Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988) S. 4 - Fiduciary relationship is not exhausted by the few well known patterns of relationship - Any relationship in which one party enjoys the `active confidence' of another party who is lean on him and is inclined to repose implicit confidence in him is enough to approximate to the kind of relationship - The relationship of parent and child is also inclusive so as to cover the present case in which mother purchased the property as benami.     (180) P.L.R.
  • Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Purchase of Tractor - Plea of the Benami purchase in the name of the respondent is not available - It stands established that the plaintiff is the co-owner of the tractor to the extent of half-share - Defendant restrained from using the said tractor individually and alienating the same without the consent of the plaintiff - Order upheld. (175) P.L.R.
  • Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – That the property was purchased in the name of the father by the plaintiff out of sale consideration provided by the plaintiff as a token of respect of his father – Plea of the suit property being 'benami' set up by the appellant is not applicable – Even no account/cheque book or any statement of bank account have been brought on record from where it could transpire that the money for purchasing the suit property had actually been provided out of the funds of the plaintiff - It has come on record by way of evidence that the property in question was self acquired property. . (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 
  • Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988) S. 3, 4 - Plea of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was promulgated by the Government on 5.9.1988 and in view of the new Act, there was a prohibition on benami transaction except the exceptions carved out in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act - In essence, the plea of benami transaction can only be taken where the person in whose name property is held to be a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family and the property is held for the benefit of the coparceners in the family; or where the person in whose name the property is held is a trustee or other person standing in a fiduciary capacity, and the property is held for the benefit of another person for whom he is a trustee or towards whom he stands in such capacity - Plea of benami transaction can be taken in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and it would not apply retrospectively, meaning thereby the Act would come into force from the date it has been promulgated. (178) P.L.R. 
  •  Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988) Section 4(3) – Makes it clear that where a person in whose name a property is held as coparcener in a Hindu Undivided Family and the property is held for the benefits of the coparcener in the property, provisions of Section 4 containing prohibition of the right to recover the property held benami would not be applicable - The bar of the Act is not applicable to a transaction as contained in section 4(3) (a) and (b) - If the property is held in fiduciary capacity or is held as a trustee for the benefits of another person for whom he is a trustee or towards whom he stands in such capacity.  (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER (S.C.)