Home Case Index All Cases Benami Property Benami Property + HC Benami Property - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1618 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTWhether or not the amended provisions apply to the suit transaction, the suit transaction itself having been executed prior to the amendment and the suit also having been filed and defence raised as well as the suit decreed by the courts below before the amended act was introduced? Held that: - there is no need to consider the further question as to whether the Defendant, in the present case, has proved the source of his income through which the consideration is paid for the suit property. The whole edifice of the Defendant's argument is based on the retrospective applicability of the Amended Act or the expression "daughter" even otherwise including a 'step-daughter'. Since this very foundation is untenable, the edifice must fall - it is pertinent to note that it was not the case of the Defendant in his written statement or even in his appeal before the lower appellate court that there was any fiduciary relationship coming within clause (b) of Section 4(3) of the Benami Act between the parties. But more importantly, the averments, such as they were in the written statement, may at the most suggest that it was the Defendant who held such position of trust or fiduciary capacity. It cannot be suggested that the Plaintiff was either a trustee or a person standing in a fiduciary capacity, vis-à-vis the Defendant, holding the property for the benefit of the Defendant. There is, accordingly, no merit whatsoever in this contention. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|