Last Updated: Tuesday November 04, 2008
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (Indian)
INTRODUCTION
Benami purchases are purchases in false name of another person, who does not pay the consideration but merely lends his name, while the real title vests in another person who actually purchased the property and he is the beneficial owner. Benami transactions used to take place to evade law of perpetuity, because of parda system, to avoid annoyance, Zamindar’s desire to avoid indignity and legal disability, mysterious desire etc.
Benami
transactions were noticed as early as the year
Such
benami transactions abused and defrauded public revenues and creditors. The
Parliament for the first time intervened in 1976 when it introduced section
281A in the Income-tax Act, 1961 barring the institution of suit in relation to
benami properties. But this too did not stop benami transactions and its
consequences, this time the Parliament totally prohibited the benami
transactions and made it an offence also, prohibiting all suits, claims and
actions based upon benami transaction. The Parliament also in order to stop the
abuse and fraud by the benami transaction property without compensation
repealed section 82 of Indian Trusts Act and section 281A of the Income tax Act
alongwith other consequential repeal. The Law Commission was requested to
examine the subject on benami transactions in all its ramifications. The Law
Commission submitted its 57th Report. To implement the
recommendations of the Law Commission President promulgated the Benami Transaction
(Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 on
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
(1)
To implement the recommendations of the Fifty-seventh Report of the Law
Commission in Benami Transactions, the President promulgated the Benami
Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988, on
(2) The Ordinance provided that no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami shall lie and no defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action. It however, made two exceptions regarding property held by a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family for the benefit of the Coparceners and property held by a trustee or other person standing in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of another person. It also repealed section 82 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 281A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
(3) The provisions of the Ordinance received a mixed response from the press and the public. There had been criticism also that the Ordinance was a half-hearted measure and had not tackled the problem effectively and completely. It was, therefore, felt that the Bill to replace the Ordinance may be brought out as a comprehensive law on benami transactions touching all aspects and accordingly, the Law Commission was requested to examine the subject in all its ramifications. The Law Commission has submitted its 130th Report titled "Benami Transactions – a Continuum" and has made certain recommendations.
(4)
The Law Commission has, inter alia, recommended the inclusion of the following
provisions in the Bill to replace the Ordinance, namely: -
(i) benami transactions should cover all kinds of property;
(ii) entering into a benami transaction after the commencement of the new law should be declared as an offence. However, an exception should be made for transactions entered into by the husband or father for the transfer of properties in the name of the wife or unmarried daughter for their benefit. By this, the doctrine of advancement as obtaining in the English law will be incorporated into the Indian Statute Book;
(iii) Voluntary organisations should be authorised to file complaints about the entering into of benami transaction and the District Judges should be designated as Tribunals. Even Gram Nayalayas recommended by the Law Commission may also be utilised for this purpose;
(iv) as both the benamidar and the true owner are equal participants to a criminal transaction, by prohibiting the true owner’s right to recover property held benami as provided in the Ordinance will be provided for an undue enrichment to the benamidar. As such, the Commission has suggested that the properties should be acquired form him by resorting to a procedure analogous to Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.It has been suggested that the same action has to be taken when a benamidar retransfers the property back to the true owner for an apparent or no consideration to circumvent the provisions of the Ordinance;
(v) in addition to section 82 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, as provided in the Ordinance, sections 81 and 94 of that Act should also be omitted;
(vi)
appointment of an authority, like the Charity Commissioner, for supervising
private trusts should be provided for.
(5) The recommendations of the Law commission have been examined. It is felt
that all the recommendations of the Law Commission , except the recommendation
regarding authorising voluntary organisations to file complaints before
Tribunals and the appointment of an authority , like the Charity Commissioner,
for supervising private trusts, may be specifically provided in the Bill, and
the other two recommendations would, it is felt, come into effect automatically
as a result of the prohibition of benami transactions and the provision for
acquisition of all properties held benami. The Bill accordingly provides for
the following, among other things, namely: -
(a) entering into benami transactions after the commencement of the new law will be an offence, with an exception for the transfer of properties by the husband or father for the benefit of the wife or unmarried daughters;
(b)
all the properties held benami will be subject to acquisition by such
authority, in such manner and after following such procedure, as may be
prescribed by rules under the proposed legislation. As a result of the
provisions of the Ordinance and the prohibition of entering into benami
transactions, the benamidar would be acquiring the rights to the property by
the mere lending of his name and without investing any money for the purchase
of such property. Accordingly, it is provided that no amount shall be payable
for the acquisition of any property held benami:
(c) Sections 81 and 94 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, shall also be repealed.
(6) The Bill seeks to achieve the above object.
Act 45 of 1988
The Bill was passed by both the Houses of Parliament and
it received the assent of the President of
Preamble
[
An
Act to prohibit benami transactions and the right to recover property held
benami for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. BE it enacted by Parliament in the
Thirty-ninth Year of the
1. Short title, extent and commencement. - (1) This Act may be called the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
(2)
It extends to the whole of
(3) The provisions of sections 3m 5 and 8 shall come into force at once, and the remaining provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 19th day of May , 1988.
2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -
(a) "Benami transaction" means any transaction in which property is
transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by another
person:
(b)
"Prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(c) Property means property of any kind, whether movable or immovable, tangible
or intangible, and includes any right or interest in such property.
COMMENTS
(I)
The definition of "benami transaction " in clause (a) of section 2 is
not restricted in its application to section 3 alone but also applies to
Section 4 and 5 of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Parliament has
conveyed its intention that the word benami transaction is not confined to one
section alone and also that the definition would contain only one category
tripartite of benami transaction. The parliament has choosen to confine the
definition to one category only. The idea was to make the intention abundantly
clear that parliament did not want to encircle the second category i.e.
bipartite or sham transaction; Bhargavy P. Sumanthykutty v. Janaki Sathyabhama,
AIR 1995 Ker 42.
(ii)
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is a piece of prohibitory
legislation and it prohibits benami transactions subject to stated exception. A
retrospective operation is not be given to a statute so as to impair existing rights
or obligations. The presumption against retrospective operation is strong in
cases in which the statute if operated retrospectively would prejudicially
affect vested rights or the illegality of the past transactions, or impair
contracts, or impose new duty, or attach new disability in respect of past
transactions or consideration already passed and as defined in section 2(a) a
transaction must be benami irrespective of its date of duration, i.e. the
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is retrospective of its date or
duration, i.e. the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is retrospective
in operation; Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare, AIR 1989 SC 1247.
(iii)
The principal governing the question whether a transfer is benami transaction
or not may be summed up: (1) the burden of showing that a transfer is benami
transaction lies on the person who asserts that it is such a transaction; (2)
if it is proved that the purchase money came from a person other than the
person in whose favour the property is transferred, the purchase is prima facie
assumed to be for the benefit of the person who supplied the purchase money,
unless there is evidence to the contrary;(3) the true character of the
transaction is governed by the intention of the person who has contributed the
purchase money, and (4) the question as to what his intention was has to be
decided on the basis of the surrounding circumstances, the relationship of the
parties, the motive governing their action in bringing about the transaction
and their subsequent conduct etc; Raj ballav Das v. Haripada Das, AIR 1985 Cal
2.
(iv)
The onus to prove that the transaction was benami is on the person who sets it.
Mer suspicion is no evidence to hold any transaction to be benami one, but
should be proved by direct evidence; Drigpal Singh v. Wife of Laldhari Ojha,
AIR 1985 Pat110; see also Ram Narayan Dubey v. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 NOC 65
(Pat); Rahul Amin v. Chabbahan Bibi, air 1986 Cal 366; Urmila Dasi v. Probodhy
Ch. Ghosh, AIR Cal 383.
(v)
Property as per the definition in Behami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988
would include any right or interest in such property and hence the right to
purchase under the hire purchase agreement entered into by the second defendant
with the third defendant or its predecessor in interest shall certainly come
within the ambit of property; B. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekaran, AIR
1990m Mad 353.
(vi)
Before the promulgation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to
Recover Property) Ordinance and even before the Benami Transactions
(Prohibition) Act was passed, two kinds of transaction were recognized by the
courts in
3. Prohibition of benami transactions- (1) No person shall enter into any benami transaction.
(2)
Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to the purchase of property by any
person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter and it shall be presumed,
unless the contrary is proved, that the said property had been purchased for
the benefit of the wife or the unmarried daughter.
(3)
Whoever enters into any benami transaction shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with
both.
(4)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2of 1974), an offence under this section shall be non-cognizable and bailable.
COMMENTS
(I)
Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
contemplates that when a property is purchased by a person in the name of his
wife, there is a reputable presumption that the property had been purchased for
the benefit of the wife. The first respondent has not let in any satisfactory
evidence to rebut the presumption that the petition mentioned property was
purchased for the benefit of the petitioner. Therefore it has been held that
the transaction is not a benami transaction and that the first respondent is
not the real owner of the petition mentioned property; Rajam Ammal v. P.K. Pillai,
AIR 1991 Mad 310.
(ii)
Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
will not save acquisition of property in the name of wife of a corparcener by
the by the joint family as it is a benami transaction; Rameshwar Mistry v.
Babulal Mistry, AIR 1991 Pat 53.
(iii)
Sections 3 and 4 of the Behami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 have to be
read together and understood together. They are not disjunctive provisions in a
comprehensive legislation intended to prohibit benami transactions. Both
section 3 and 4 are complementary to each other to achieve the same object i.e.
prohibition of benami transactions, Ouseph Chacko v. Raman Nair, AIR 1989 Ker
317.
4. Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami. – (1) 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 person claiming to be
the real owner of such property.
(2)
No defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether
against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other
person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a
person claiming to be the real owner of such property.
(3)
Nothing in this section shall apply -
(a)
where the person in whose name the property is held is a coparcener in a Hindu
undivided family and the property is held for the benefit of the coparceners in
the family; or
(b)
where the person in whose name the property is held is a trustee or other
person standing in a fiduciary capacity, and the property is held for the
benefit of another person for whom he is a trustee or towards whom he stands in
such capacity.
COMMENTS
(i)
Sub-section (1) of section 4 has no application to the claim made in the suit
as this is not a suit filed by or on behalf of defendant No.1 against defendant
No.2 or the legal representatives of defendant No..2, instead it is a suit
filed by a third party for specific performance of the suit contract against
the real owner as well as benamidar, Murlidhar Bapuji Valve v. Yallappa Lalu
Chaugule, AIR 1994 Bom 358.
(ii) The defence raised by the contesting respondents that the transaction of
the sale under the sale deed dated 9th October, 1957 executed in
favour of the appellants was a benami transaction is prohibited in view of
section 4(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988; Duvuru Mohand
Reddy v. Alluru Nagi Reddy, AIR 1994 SC 1647.
(iii)
The defence taken by the defendant that the plot in fact was purchased by him
in the name of his brother i.e. the plot was purchased benami, cannot be
allowed by virtue of section4(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act,
1988; Om Prakash Rawal v. Justice Amrit Lal Bahri, AIR 1994 HP 27.
(iv)
Under section 88 of Indian Trusts Act, an agent or other person bound is in a
fiduciary character to protect the interest of the principal and the former
would hold the property for the benefit of the principal or the person in whose
behalf he acted as an agent. Held that a real purchaser is the respondent, the
petitioner as an agent and power of attorney had purchased the property but
ostensibly had his name entered in the sale certificate fraudulently and
without consent of the principal and the question of benami does not arise
though section 4 prohibits such a plea; P. V. Sankara Karup v. Leelavathy
Nambiar, AIR 1994 SC 2694.
(v)
A coparcenery is purely a creature of law and it cannot be created by act of
parties whereas a composite family is the result of an agreement express or
implied. There are incidents to the constitution of a composite family, but all
incidents are consequences of the agreement between the parties. Held that
exception is section4(3) could not be attracted in the present case of an
alleged composite family; B. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan, AIR
1990 Mad 353.
(vi)
On coming into force of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, defence
raised for the proof of the fact that the property held by a person is in the
capacity of a benamidar is expressly prohibited. Neither the court is permitted
in law to consider such defence nor to record its findings. Held that the
Income-tax Deptt. would be prohibited from raising a defence that the suit property
held by the wife is benami and the real owner is her husband; Smt. Khateeja Bai
v. Union of India, AIR 1994 NOC 136 MP.
(vii)
The plaintiff cannot lay any claim in view of section 4 to the house on the
ground that they stand in the name of step mother benami for her deceased
father, Baghyavathi v. Lakahmikathammal, AIR 1993 Mad 346.
(viii)
The burden of showing that a transfer is a benami transaction lies on the
person who asserts that is such a transaction. The governing principal for
determining the question whether a transaction is benami or not is to be proved
by showing that the purchase money came from a person other than the person in
whose favour the property is transferred . The intention of the person who
contributed towards the money has to be inferred from the circumstances and the
relationship of the parties and the motive governing their action in bringing
about the transaction and their subsequent conduct; Mahinder Singh v. Pardaman
Singh, AIR 1992 Del 357.
(ix)
In view of section 4, there is a total prohibition against any suit based on
benami transaction and the plaintiff-respondent is not entitled to get any
decree in such suit or in appeal, an appeal being a constitution of suit and in
the present case the appeal was pending before this court. In s suit for
recovery of benami property if any appeal is pending on the date of coming into
force of section 4 the appellant court can take inot account the subsequent
legislative changes; Om Prakash v. Jai Prakah, AIR 1992 SC 885.
(x)
Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition ) Act, must be taken to relate
of section 2 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover
Property) Ordinance, 1988. It is clear that in spite of the recommendation of
the Law Commission of India to bar institution of suits only, the Ordinance
making authority has thought if it to bar other proceedings also and has also
provided in express words barring of all claims and actions to enforce the
right of a person alleging to be the real owner against the benemidar. The
Legislature by using the expression ‘shall lie’ made departure from the usual
expression ’shall be institute’ clearly demonstrate its resolve to regulate all
such suits, claims or actions also which would be lying in the court on the date
of its commencement; Urmila Bala Dasi v. Probodh Chandra Ghosh, AIR Cal 283.
(xi)
The expression any property held benami is not limited to any particular time,
date or duration i.e. the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is
retrospective in operation. Once the property is found to have been held benami
no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect thereof shall lie.
Sub-section (2) of section 4 similarly nullifies the defences based on any
right in respect of any property held benami. Section
(xii)
The benamidar before the enactment of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act,
1988 could not have any right, title and interest in the property which the
benamidar could convey. By the principle of fictional relation back as
propounded by the Supreme Court in Mithlesh Kumari, the benamidar should be
deemed to have title to the property on the date he executed the deed or
release. Held that Surendra Kumar was the benamidar and in point of act on the
date of execution of the deed of release he had no right or interest in the
property; Ratanlal Bansilal v. Kishorilal Goenka, AIR 1993 Cal 144.
(xiii)
It has been held that the suit is not hit by sections 2 and 4 of the Benami
Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 as the plaintiff has not alleged that the
defendant No 1 i.e. one of the partners was or is a benamidar or that the money
was paid by the plaintiff or that the property was purchased in the name of the
defendant No.1 as benamidar apart from that the under section 14 and 15 of the
Partnership Act, a partnership can acquire asserts in the name of partners and
these sections have not been deleted by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition)
Act, 1988; Md. Hasan Hashmi v. Smt. Kaberi Roy, AIR 1993 Cal 70.
(xiv)
Section 4 takes into its ambit the right of a real owner vis-à-vis ostensible
owner. The prohibition under section 4(1) and (2) does not prohibit the right
of a third party to get a declaration. The third party has the right to raise
the contention that someone was the real transferee and the sale deed was only
executed in the name of the transferee who was a benamidar, Gopal Bariha v.
Satyanarayan Das, AIR 1991 Ori 131.
(xv)
Section 2 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover
Property) Ordinance, 1988 relates to section 4 of the Benami Transaction
(Prohibition) Act, 1988 and according to section 2 of the Benami Transactions
(Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988, action means a
civil proceeding commenced by "writ" or in such other manner, as may
be prescribed by rules of court but does not include a criminal proceeding,
therefore the term "action" is wide enough to take in an appeal or a
second appeal; Velayudhan Ramkrishan v. Rajeev, AIR 1989 Ker 12.
(xvi)
In the context and setting of section 4 the word ‘held ‘ has to be understood
as "possessed or occupied". If the possession or occupation is not
benami, section 4 can have no application and as a sham transaction or
bipartite transaction is not a benami. Section 4 does not apply to such a
transaction; Ouseph Chacko v. Raman Nair, AIR 1989 Ker 317.
(xvii)
Section 4 and 7 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 relate to
sections 2 and 4 of the Benami Transactions(Prohibition of the Right to Recover
Property) Ordinance, 1988. Both section 7 of the Benami Act and section 4 of
the Benami Ordinance repeal section 82 of the Trusts Act keeping section 81 of
the Trusts Act intact. Keeping in view section 81 of Trusts Act nominal
transactions are not intended to be covered and are not hit by section 4;B.
Rayudu, AIR 1989 AP 290.
5. Property held benami liable to acquisition-(1) All properties held benami
shall be subject to acquisition by such authority, in such manner and after
following such procedure, as may be prescribed.
(2)
For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no amount be payable for
the acquisition of any property under sub-section(1)
COMMENTS
Section
5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 applies only to tripartite
or benami transactions and not to bipartite or sham transactions, for if it had
been so, the property covered by bipartite transactions would also be liable to
be acquired without compensation or payment of any amount and the Legislature
too has not declared it as opposed to public policy and prohibit the same prospectively;
Bhargavy P. Sumaathykutty v. Janaki Sathyabhama, AIR 1995 Ker 42.
6. Act not to apply in certain cases.-Nothing in this Act shall affect
the provisions of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882),
or any law relating to transfer for an illegal purpose.
COMMENTS
The object of the
Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is vest ownership rights in
benamidar as against the real owner. It is not the intention of the Benami Act
to protect such person from the creditors who allege diversion of funds by such
persons in a fraudulent manner in order to escape their liability to the
creditor. Therefore when it is alleged that the diversion of funds (movable
property) by defendant No.
7. Repeal of provisions of certain Acts.-(1) Sections 81, 82 and 94 of the
Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (2of 1882), section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5of 1908), and section
(2)
For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing in sub-section
(1) shall affect the continued operation of section
8. Power to make rules.-(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(2)
In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power,
such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(a)
the authority competent to acquire properties under section5;
(b)
the manner in which, and the procedure to be followed for, the acquisition of
properties under section5;
(c)
any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed
(3)
Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is
made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session for a total
period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more
successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately
following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree
in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule
should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified
form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such
modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of
anything previously done under that rule.
9. Repeal and saving. – (1) The Benami Transactions
(Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 (Ordinance 2 of
1988), is hereby repealed.
(2)
Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said
Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding
provisions of this Act.
Go to Index | LL. B. – I | LL. B. – II | LL. B. – III | LL. B. Directory | Home