The question for determination before the honourable bench was whether the provisions of S.4 of the Benami transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was attracted to the facts of the case.
It was contended that S.4 of the Benami Act would be attracted since schedule property stood in the name of the mother i.e. the 2nd defendant(since deceased). Therefore the property would be treated as self acquired property of the 2nd defendant.
It was observed that the properties belonging to the Joint family were settled in favour of the 2nd defendant, where it was clearly stated that the properties could not be sold by herself but only along with the other members of the family including the settlor. The courts below had clearly held that the father of the appellant had purchased the property for his wife i.e. the 2nddefendant. From evidence available on record, the schedule property was held to be joint family property.
It was held by the court that since the property is a joint family property and the claim only seeks to proclaim the property as joint family property and not to claim the property to be their own property, the rigor of S..4 of the Benami Act cannot have any application to the facts of the case.