The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 to determine the maintainability of the suit and the restrictions on amendments to the plaint by legal representatives.

1. By this second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), the appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment & decree dated 10.4.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Pendra Road, in Civil Appeal No.108A/2002, affirming the judgment & decree dated 31.8.2001 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Pendra Road, in Civil Suit No.83A/2000, whereby the Civil Judge Class-I has decreed the suit in favour of the respondents.

2. The present second appeal was admitted on 15.9.2011 on the following substantial question of law:-

Whether the suit originally filed by plaintiff was not maintainable as barred in terms of Section 4(iii) (b) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 ?

3. As per initial case of the plaintiff father of the appellant namely Radhikacharan Dubey, after his retirement has purchased suit property bearing khasra No.34/6 area 0.03 acre and khasra No.34/9 area 0.05 acre with constructed house over the property at village Tikarsani, Tahsil Pendra Road on payment of consideration of Rs.9,000/- in the; name of the appellant. At that time appellant was student and was not having any source of income to purchase such property. Father of the appellant was karta of joint Hindu family.

The present appellant was not having any interest over the property. The appellant threatened his father that he will oust him from the suit property, then suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was filed by father of the appellant.

4. By filing written statement the appellant has denied the adverse allegation made in the plaint and has specifically claimed that he has purchased the property from his own income, his father was not having any interest over the property. During pendency of the suit, father of the appellant died and his mother, three sisters and one brother were impleaded as legal representatives of deceased Radhikaracharan Dubey.

5. They have amended the plaint and have claimed declaration that the property is joint property of the appellant and the respondents. By detailed amendment the present respondents have amended the plaint that husband of respondent No.1 and father of other respondents was karta of joint Hindu Family. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Civil Judge Class-I, Pendra Road decreed the suit on the ground that the land was owned by Radhikacharan Dubey and appellant and respondents are heirs of Radhikacharan Dubey, they are entitled for equal shares over the property. While affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court the lower appellate Court has held that the property has been purchased by Radhikacharan Dubey and not by the present appellant, therefore, as heirs of Radhikacharan Dubey parties are entitled for equal shares.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment & decree impugned, judgment & decree of the trial Court and records of the Courts below.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per claim and plaint allegation Radhikacharan Dubey was karta of joint Hindu family but he has purchased the suit property from his own income and property was his self-acquired property. Sale deed was executed in favour of the present appellant. By pleading made in the plaint virtually Radhikacharan Dubey, father of the appellant has pleaded and proved that it was benami transaction and the property was purchased in the name of the appellant. Learned counsel further argued that after enforcement of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988'), benami transaction has been prohibited. Section 3 of the Act, 1988 prohibits benami transaction, but if the property is purchased in the name of unmarried daughter and wife for their benefits, then same will not be affected by the Act, 1988. Section 4 of the Act, 1988 prohibits filing of suit and claim to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the