( 1 ) THIS revision petition is a glaring example of family tension, leading to litigation between the plaintiff/mother and the defendant/son.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petition, she purchased property No. 2707 Main Bazar Sabzi Mandi, Delhi on 29th January 1985 out of her own savings. In that shop husband and father is said to be the tenant and running a chemist shop bequeathed by father-in-law and grandfather of the parties, in favour of his son Inder Shankar Gupta. Tension led to dispute.

( 3 ) MOTHER/petitioner along with her husband filed a suit No. 201/91 on 6th May 1991 alleging that she was owner having purchased the same and her husband claimed that he was tenant in the property at monthly rent of Rs. 600. 00 and prayed for injunction against their son from interfering in the peaceful possession.

( 4 ) SON/respondent also filed a suit No. 211/91 on 6th May 1991 itself claiming that he was running his Raghav Ayurvedic Store in half portion of shop No. 2707 and is living on the first floor of the said shop. The property was said to be just Hindu family property.

( 5 ) SON/respondent subsequently filed a partition suit in April 1992 in High Court of Delhi and claimed that it was joint Hindu family property and it was purchased with the nucleus of HUF fund "in the name of the mother.

( 6 ) FOURTH suit No. 762/93 was filed by the mother against her son for recovery of possession of the suit property No. 27 of Main Bazar Subzi Mandi, Delhi and for mense profits/damages to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 2000. 00 per month w. e. f. 1st May 1993, claiming herself to be the owner.

( 7 ) IT is apparent that in all these four matters, there are mainly two questions (i) whether property No. 2707 Main Bazar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi is personal property of Smt. Rajni Rani Gupta or Joint Hindu Family property purchased benami in her name on 29th January 1985?; and (ii) whether in view of the Benami Transactions (Prohibitions) Act 1988, the property in dispute could be treated as Joint Hindu Family Property?

( 8 ) 1 But it is common knowledge that before promulgation of the Ordinance to prohibit the right to recover property held benami, properties, were and could be, purchased benami and the courts did recognise such transactions. The Ordinance took shape of the Act after it was passed by Rajya Sabha on 31st August 1988 and the President gave his assent on 5th September 1988. However, Section 1 (3) provides that the provisions of Sections 3,5 and 8 shall come into force at once, and the remaining provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have come into effect on 19th day of May 1988", i. e. the date when the ordinance was promulgated. Section 3 deals with Prohibition of benami transactions. It reads as under: 3. Prohibition of benami transactions.- (1) No person shall enter into any benami transaction. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to the purchase of property by any person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter and it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the said property had been purchased for the benefit of the wife or the unmarried daughter. (3) Whoever enters into any benami transaction shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence under this section shall be non-cognizable and bailable. Section 5 provides for acquisition of property held benami without any payment, while Section 8 relates to powers of the Central Government to make rules. We are presently not concerned with Sections 5 and 8 of the Act. 8. 2 Earlier there was some controversy about retrospective application of the Act. This controversy has been set at rest by S. Rajagopal Reddy (dead) by LRs. and Ors. Vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan (dead) by LRs. , JT 1995 (2) SC 667 and Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra Vs. Heirs of Parshottam S. Shah, JT 1996 (4) SC 725, wher