2000 (7) TMI 983 - SC - Benami Property

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988 in relation to execution proceedings under Section 144 CPC.

Summary:
The appeal challenged the High Court's order allowing an application under Section 115, CPC, related to a writ for delivery of possession under Order 21, Rule 35 of the CPC. The main issue was whether the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988 applied to execution proceedings arising from Section 144 CPC. The property in question was originally owned by Tulsi Bala, later purchased by Urmila Dassi. Disputes arose regarding the property's ownership, leading to legal proceedings and possession changes. The appellant filed for restoration of possession under Section 144 CPC, which was initially allowed but later challenged under the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988.

The key contention revolved around the retrospective application of Section 4 of the Act, which prohibits suits, claims, or actions by real owners against benamidars. The appellant argued that Section 4 was not retrospective, while the respondent claimed otherwise. The Court analyzed the Act's language and previous judgments to determine the Act's applicability to pending proceedings and past transactions involving benamidars. It was established that the appellant's claim under Section 144 CPC was made before the Act came into force, thus not barred by Section 4.

The Court clarified that the possession restoration order under Order 21, Rule 35 was a procedural step, not a new claim or action by the appellant. As the appellant's claim was pending before the Act's enforcement, it was not affected by Section 4. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside, with costs imposed on the parties.