Thomas, J.

The nub of the dispute, shorn of all its ramifications, is whether" S.4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (for short 'the Benami act) applies to "sham transactions". Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. has held in Ouseph Chacko v. Ramon Nair (1989(1) K.L.T 767) that it does not. But one of the observations made by Balakrishnan, J. in Mohanan v. Yesoda (1989 (1) KLT 867) is treated as expression of contrary view. Though the decision of Balakrishnan, J. was rendered earlier in point of time, we don't think that Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. was not aware of the said decision. Varghese Kalliath, J. while hearing arguments in G.R.P. No. 1446/89 noticed the aforesaid conflict in views of two learned judges mentioned above and hence through a fairly lengthy reference order referred the question to a Bench which in turn the Division Bench has referred to the Full Bench.

2. Shri. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, advocate, has raised a contention that Balakrishnan, J. has not in fact adopted a contrary view in Mohanan v. Yesoda (1989(1) K.L.T 867) in conflict with the ratio involved in Ouseph Chacko v Raman Nair (1989(1) KLT 767). Be that as it may, we will now examine the quest