Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
Section 82 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 94 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Indian Trusts Act, 1882
Section 81 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Jm Kohli vs Madan Mohan Sahni & Anr on 7 May, 2012
In this case,
there is no evidence on the contrary and though the trial court has
specifically not referred to the judgment in the case of M.C. Agrawal
HUF (supra), the principle which is applied by the trial court is
RFA No. 957/2017 Page 15 of 16
completely in accordance with the ratio in the case of M.C. Agrawal
HUF (supra).
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sh Amar N Gugnani vs Naresh Kumar Gugnani Through Legal ... on 30 July, 2015
10. Another reason given by the trial court for disbelieving
the plea of the appellant no.1/defendant no. 1 was that this plea of
appellant no. 1/defendant no. 1 of being owner on account of paying
moneys is to be held to be barred by Section 4 of the Benami
Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
RFA No. 957/2017 Page 9 of 16
Benami Act') as the plea of appellant no.1/defendant no. 1 was that he
was a joint owner i.e a benamidar of the subject property although the
sale deed of the suit property dated 9.8.1965, Ex.PW1/1, was in the
sole name of late Sh. Prahlad Singh. Trial court for holding the
defence of appellant no.1/defendant no. 1 of being owner allegedly by
having paid moneys and thus being barred by the Benami Act has
referred to two judgments passed by this Court in the cases of J.M.
Kohli Vs. Madan Mohan Sahni and Anr., in RFA No. 207/2012
decided on 7.5.2012 and CS(OS) No. 478/2004 titled as Sh. Amar N.
Gugnani Vs. Naresh Kumar Gugnani (through legal heirs) decided on
30.7.2015. These judgments hold that since by passing of the Benami
Act the relevant provisions of the Indian Trusts Act calling the
benamidar as a trustee have been repealed, hence the relationship of
benami transaction though is in the nature of a trust/trustee the same
cannot be included in the exception contained in Section 4(3)(b) of the
Benami Act because otherwise effectively the repealed provisions of
the Indian Trusts Act will again be brought into force. The object of
excluding fiduciary relationships from benami transactions is to give
exception to a very limited classes of fiduciary relationships provided
RFA No. 957/2017 Page 10 of 16
that they are really not in the nature of bemani transactions. The
relevant paras of the judgment of the trial court in this regard are paras
28 to 32 and these paras read as under:-