R. Basant, J.

Has the appellant succeeded in establishing that Ext.B5 transaction is a ‘benami transaction’? If so, has he succeeded in “proving the contrary” as required and insisted by Section 3 of the Benami Transaction (prohibitions) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)? These are the only serious question that come up for consideration in the light of the arguments specifically advanced before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The relevant and vital facts first. The appellant and the respondent are spouses. Their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent during the pendency of this appeal as per an order passed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act in Mat Appeal No,207/2004 on 27-10-2009. Their marriage took place on 21-1-1986. They resided together for some period of time after such matrimony. There is a serious dispute about the date on which separate residence commenced. Admittedly, when separate residence commenced, whether it be in January 1987 as contended by the appellant or on 17-12-1986 as contended by the respondent in this proceedings or on 9-11-1986 as contended by the respondent in Exst.A4, it is not disputed that s