The central legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, including its impact on pending proceedings, exemptions for specific transactions, and the fiduciary capacity exception.

The plaintiff is the appellant. The respondent-defendant is his wife.

2. The appellant filed the suit O.S.No.27 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate: Judge's Court, Badagara originally for a declaration that two deeds of assignment taken by the respondent were benami for him and to injunct the respondent from alienating the suit property by executing any deed of transfer in respect of the properties. With the coming into force of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act the appellant sought an amendment of the plaint contending this the Benami Act does not affect his right to the relief claimed by him and that it was open to him to raise the plea of benami notwithstanding the Act. He also included an alternative claim for value of improvements to the tune of Rs.30,000/- on the averment that he has effected improvements in the property and in case it is found that he is not entitled to the declaration sought for by him, he is in any event, entitled to the value of improvements claimed. The respondent-wife resisted the suit. She denied the plea of the appellant that the sale deeds obtained by her are benami for him. She also contended that the suit is barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, She also denied that the appellant has effected any improvements in the property with his funds. She denied the appellant's claim that he is entitled to claim value of improvements in the suit. She prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

3. The trial court relying on the decision reported in Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem BehariKhare (AIR 1989 SC 1247) held that the relief of declaration sought for by the appellant is barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act. It therefore found that substantive prayers made by the appellant cannot be granted. The trial court thereafter dealt with the claim for value of improvements made by the appellant After exhaustively dealing with the oral evidence in that behalf and noticing the inconsistencies in the claim made and the absence of particulars furnished by the appellant, the trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove his entitlement to claim value of improvements. The trial court also held that there is no evidence to show that the appellant was entitled to claim Rs.30,000/- towards the value of improvements. It also observed that since the improvements are effected in the property alleged to be acquired benami, the appellant may not be entitled to claim the value of improvements. The trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has come up with this appeal.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Benami Act has no application to this case since this is a case of the husband purchasing the property in the name of his wife and that S.3(1) of the Act which prohibits benami transactions has no application. Alternatively, he contends that the respondent, the wife, was standing in a fiduciary capacity to the appellant, her husband and that therefore S.4 of the Act cannot be applied to this case in view of S.4(3) (b) of the Act. He therefore submits that the trial court was in error in holding that the substantive reliefs claimed by him are hit by the Benami

Transactions (Prohibition) Act.

5. The properties were acquired in this case under Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 both in March 1982. Ss.3, 5 and 8 of the Act came into force on 5-9-1988. The other sections of the Act came into force on 19-5-1988 (See S. I (3) of the act). S.3 of the Act prohibits Benami Transactions. S.5 provides for confiscation of property held benami. S.8 of the Act confers the Rule making power. S.4 of the Act which is also relevant for the purpose of this case and which came into force on 19-5-1988 prohibits the right to recover the property held benami. It has been held by this court in Velayudhan v. Rajeev (1988 (2) KLT 369) and by the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Kumari's case that S.4 of the Act is retrospective in operation and affects pending proceedings. It c