Judgment

KASLIWAL, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment of Allahabad High Court dated 24-11-1987. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit on the ground that the land purchased through 4 sale deeds dated 10-6-1968, 21-6-68, 17-1-1976 and 23-6-1977 were purchased by him alone and he was the real owner of said land. The name of the defendants/appellants were included in the said sale deeds only as benamidar. The defendants-appellants took the plea that they had paid their part of the sale consideration and the land was jointly purchased in the name of both the parties. It may be noted that the defendant-appellant Om Prakash and plaintiff-respondent Jai Prakash are brothers and defendant-appellant No. 2 Smt. Satyawati is the wife of appellant Om Prakash. It has come on record that the appellant No. 1 Om Prakash was in Government service ever since 1953 and the plaintiff-respondent was looking after the entire agricultural property in the village. Consolidation proceedings also took place in the village and during the consolidation operation partition had been effected in the revenue records and chaks had been carved out in accordance with the share of the parties. At that time no dispute was raised by the plaintiff-respondent that he was owner of the entire property and the names of defendants-appellants were wrongly mentioned as benami.

2. The learned trial court arrived at the conclusion that the names of the defendants appellants in the sale deeds were not mentioned as benamidars and further held that the claim of the plaintiff-respondent could not be accepted as no objection had been taken by him even during the consolidation proceedings. The suit as such was dismissed by the trial Court by Judgment dated 24-1-1987. The plaintiff aggrieved against the judgment of the trial court, filed an appeal. The first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The second appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the High Court. The defendants aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the High Court filed special leave petition before this Court on 15th March, 1988. During the pendency of the special leave petition, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 was promulgated by the President of India on 19-5-1988. The said ordinance was replaced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Benami Act). The Act received the assent of the President of India on 5-9-1988. The defendants filed an application on 1-5-1989 for allowing them to take additional grounds made available on the basis of the aforesaid Benami Act. Thereafter special leave was granted by this court by order dated 21-8-1989 and it was directed that printing of record is dispensed with and appeal will be heard on the special leave petition paper books. The parties were given liberty to file additional documents if any within four weeks and the appeal was directed to be listed on 13-12-1989 for hearing. Pending disposal of the appeal, the parties were directed to maintain status quo as existing on that day.

3. In the above circumstances, the matter came up for hearing before us.

4. Though there is no specific order of this Court allowing the application dated 1-5-1989 filed by the appellants for raising additional grounds, the same shall be deemed to have been allowed as the special leave petition was granted subsequently on 21-8-1989 after hearing both the parties. In any case, we further make it clear that we had permitted the defendants/appellants to argue additional grounds made available to them under the Benami Act, which admittedly came into force after the filing of the special leave petition in this Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants appellants had contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was not maintainable and barred under Section 49 of the U