( 1 ) THE question that was now argued after the second appeal was posted for ehearing was that in view of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) (the defendants are not entitled to raise the plea that the property was purchased by Shaik Ali in the year 1924 benami in the name of Abdul Khadar and the sale deed was nominally executed in the name of Abdul Khadar but the property was purchased for the benefit of Shaik Ali. The question whether the real owner of the property is entitled to plead the benami nature of transaction was considered by the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Kumari vs. Prem Behari Khare. It was held that the Act is retrospective in operation. Therefore, in view of the said judgment the defendants are not entitled to plead that the property was purchased benami in the name of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) IN Duvuru Jaya Mohana Reddy vs. Alluru Nagi Reddy the Supreme Court reiterated what they have stated in Mithilesh Kumari vs. Prem Behari Khare. The relevant observations are as follows:"it has been held that the said provision would apply to proceedings pending on the date of the commencement of the Act and the p