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

..... f against the defendants to declare the suit schedule properties 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 w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eld that the view taken by the apex court in its earlier judgment 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X