1995 (4) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as joint family properties of the plaintiff (first respondent herein) and to declare the sale deed dated February 11, 1965 (exhibit P-2), as benami and for a permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Defendant No. 1 is the wife of the plaintiff. She is the ostensible purchaser under the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 988 (in short, 'the Act'), whether the courts below are justified in law in decreeing the suit ?" Section 4(1) of the Act reads as under: " 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." .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... udgment in Mithilesh Kumari's case [1989] 177 ITR 97 does not lay down the correct law. In view of the larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court, the provisions of section 4(1) of the Act are prospective in nature and cannot be pressed in service in connection with suits filed prior to the coming into operation of the said section. In view of this latter decision of the Supreme Court in the case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X