The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 4(1) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, which prohibits suits to enforce rights in respect of property held benami.

1. Heard the submissions made on either side.

2. The defendant aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition filed by him under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint, has preferred the present Revision Petition.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of the suit property. The respondent/plaintiff is none other then the eldest son of the petitioner/defendant.

4. The Contention of the respondent/plaintiff is that he purchased the suit property of course in the name of his mother, as the petitioner herein was a bachelor then. The mother has no independent source of income. Therefore, he is the absolute owner of the suit property.

5. The petitioner/defendant resisted such a plea emanated form the plaintiff. The petitioner/defendant contends that she is the absolute owner of the suit property. It is further contended that as per Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 the respondent/plaintiff is debarred from filing a Suit making a claim over the property which was allegedly held benami in the name of his mother.

6. A separate Petition in I.A. No. 5010 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner/defendant praying to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant would submit that there is a clear bar under Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 to file a Suit to enforce the right in respect of the property held benami. As the scope of the Suit falls squarely under the ambit of section 4 of the said Act, the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. he submits.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that Section 4 of the said Act is prospective in operation and it would not have retrospective operation with respect to the benami transaction that took place long ago.

9. Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 would read that no Suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. Even the real owner of the property cannot set up a defence based on any right in respect of such property held benami as per the aforesaid provision of law.

10. The sum and substance of the provision under Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is that the real owner of the property shall not lay any Suit after coming operation of the said Act as on 19th May 1988 by instituting any Suit or defend the Suit which was laid as against him. The said provision will not apply to a Suit or Appeal which was already pending. The Courts have held that Section 4 of the said Act will have prospective operation and net retrospective operation to mean that Section 4(1) and (2) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 would not apply to the pending Suit or Appeal.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji V. Mahadev Channabasappa, 2000 (6) SCC 120, has categorically held as follows :

“9. In R. Rajagopal Reddy V. Padmini Chandrasekharan, this Court has overruled the decision in the case of mithilesh kumari and has held that the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 are not retrospective in operation and do not apply to pending Suit filed and entertained prior to the coming into force of Section 4.”

Section 4 of the Act would not apply to a Suit filed by the plaintiff prior to the coming into operation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The present Suit has been filed only in the year 2005 well after the said Act came into force. If the plaintiff had already filed the Suit to reiterate his right under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act and the same is pending disposal, of course, as per the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon’ble