PROHIBITION OF BENAMI PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS ACT, 1988 – Ss. 4 & 6 – CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 – O. VII R.11 – Suit founded on alleged benami transaction – Claim through subsequent Will executed by ostensible owner – Maintainability – Scope.

advocatemmmohan

apex court held that 

PROHIBITION OF BENAMI PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS ACT, 1988 – Ss. 4 & 6 – CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 – O. VII R.11 – Suit founded on alleged benami transaction – Claim through subsequent Will executed by ostensible owner – Maintainability – Scope.

Plaintiff pleaded that suit property though standing in name of another person was in fact purchased from plaintiff’s funds and that ostensible owner subsequently executed Will in plaintiff’s favour – Suit filed for declaration and injunction on strength of said Will – Defendants sought rejection of plaint contending that claim was barred under Benami Act.

Held : Mere execution of subsequent Will by ostensible owner does not remove statutory prohibition against enforcement of benami ownership. Where foundational pleadings disclose that plaintiff seeks to assert beneficial ownership in property purchased benami in another’s name, Court must examine real substance of transaction and not merely form of relief or language of drafting. Benami transaction cannot be indirectly enforced through testamentary device. Clever drafting creating illusion of independent testamentary claim cannot defeat bar contained under Benami Act.

Power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC obligates Court to undertake meaningful reading of plaint and reject sham or legally barred litigation at threshold itself.