9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fendants made in an application for preliminary hearing on issue No. 11. Issue No. 11 is to the following effect: "Whether the suit is hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988." The plaintiff claims title to the suit property on the allegation that the same was purchased by him in the name of defendant No. 1, who happens to be his wife who deserted him about 10 years back. Defendan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovided in sub-section (2) of the said section. The court below is, therefore, of the view that, since the suit transaction which the plaintiff alleges to be benami, is not hit by section 3, sub-section (1), of the Act, the suit has, therefore, been held to be maintainable notwithstanding the prohibition contained in section 4 of the Act. The impugned order was passed while considering a prayer ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time being in force. Admittedly, the sale deeds stand in the name of defendant No. 1, which the plaintiff claims to be a benami transaction. Subsection (2) of section 3 of the Act provides that the restriction in subsection (1) that "no person shall enter into any benami transaction" shall not apply to the purchase of property by any person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter and it sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred under section 4 of the Act which, according to him, has not been taken into consideration by the court while passing the impugned order. He has submitted that even though the prohibition under sub-section (1) would not apply to a transaction by the husband in the name of his wife, the suit may still be barred under section 4 of the Act. Learned counsel for the opposite party has contended tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
