Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the real owner of the suit house and the transaction was benami - The Act came into force during pendency of appeal before the Supreme Court - subsequent event could be taken note of and the Act being retroactive in operation, the suit could not be decreed.

Citation 

AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 1247

1989 (5) CTCOL 821

SUPREME COURT

(From: Allahabad)* G. L. OZA, J. and K. N. SAIKIA, J.

Civil Appeal No. 2311 of 1978, D/-14-2-1989

Mithilesh Kumari and another v. Prem Behari Khare

Editorial Note:

[EDITORIAL NOTE This is an important decision wherein the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act (45 of 1988) are interpreted. The facts of the case in short are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the real owner of the suit house and the transaction was benami. The suit was decreed by trial Court and the decree affirmed by appellate Court. The Act came into force during pendency of appeal before the Supreme Court.

Held that this subsequent event could be taken note of and the Act being retroactive in operation, the suit could not be decreed.]

(D)Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act (45 of 1988), S.4, S.2(a), S.3 - Applicability of Act - It is retroactive - Suit for declaring that certain property is held benami by defendant decreed - Commencement of Act during pendency of appeal - This subsequent event can be taken note of by Appellate Court - Suit would not be maintainable in view of retroactive operation of Act.

Second Appeal 130 of 1975, D/- 27-3-1978 (All.) Reversed.