Court held that under section 3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, there was a presumption that a transaction made in the name of the wife and children is for their benefit. By the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 the statutory presumption, which was rebuttable, was omitted. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 would not be applicable retrospectively.  The burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and that the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. This burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of the benami transaction or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an interference of that fact. While considering a particular transaction benami, the intention of the person who contributed the purchase money is determinative of the nature of transaction. The intention of the person, who contributed the purchase money, has to be decided on the basis of the surrounding circumstances, the relationship of the parties, the motives governing their action in bringing about the transaction and their subsequent conduct. Decision of the Madras High Court in AS No. 785 of 1992 dt. 5-8-1992  is  partly reversed.