The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 does not void benami transactions that occurred before its enforcement, but prohibits the enforcement of rights in respect of such transactions after the Act came into force.

1. The defendants in O.S. No.433 of 1996 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur are the appellants. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The said suit was filed for declaration of title and for consequential relief of injunction to restrain the defendants from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Subsequently, the suit was amended to include the prayer for recovery of possession and for mesne profits instead of permanent injunction.

2. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. As against the same, an appeal was preferred by the defendants in A.S.No.102 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri. The appeal was dismissed thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court . As against the same, the defendants are before this Court with this appeal.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: The suit property was originally owned by one Uchappa. According to the plaintiff, she purchased the same by means of a Registered Sale Deed dated 20.11.1978 for a valuable consideration of Rs.1000/- under Ex.A.1. From the date of purchase she was in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants have got no title whatsoever over the suit property. Since the defendants made attempts to trespass into the suit property, the suit was filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. However, during the pendency of the suit, according to the plaintiff, the defendants trespassed into the suit property and dispossessed him. Therefore, the suit was amended suitably so as to include the prayer for recovery of possession and for mesne profits instead of permanent injunction.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is contended as follows: It is true that the suit was originally owned by Uchappa. The plaintiff is the younger sister of the first defendant. She has been all along living with her husband at Karnataka. She never resided in the suit village. On 20.11.1978 for a valuable consideration of Rs.1000/- the suit property was purchased only by the first defendant from Mr.Uchappa. Since the brother of the first defendant was likely to claim title, the first defendant arranged for the execution of the Sale Deed in the name of the plaintiff. Thus, the entire consideration for the purpose was paid only by the first respondent. In other words, the property was purchased by the first defendant benami in the name of the plaintiff. Subsequently, by spending huge amounts, he constructed a house on the same and he has been in occupation of the same continuously. The plaintiff was never in possession of the property and she never enjoyed the same. He further contended that the allegation that he trespassed into the suit property is absolutely false, as according to him, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of purchase on 20.11.1978. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed, he contended.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. The main issue was regarding the maintainability of the plea of benami by the first defendant. On the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined and as many as 16 documents were exhibited. On the side of the defendants four witnesses including the first defendant were examined and as many as 18 documents were exhibited.

6. The trial Court held that in view of Section 4 of The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, such plea raised on the part of the first defendant is not maintainable. Therefore, the trial Court held that as per the Sale Deed dated 20.11.1978 under Ex.A.1, the plaintiff is the absolute owner. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit both for declaration of title as well as for recovery of possession. The lower appellate Court also concurred with the same. That is how, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.

7.