The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 bars any defense based on benami, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim title to the properties in Schedules 'C', 'D', and 'E' on the basis of benami.

SRINIVASAN, J.

1. Introduction : This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the first respondent herein for declaration of title, partition and separate possession of one half share in the suit properties described in Schedules ‘A’ to ‘N’ attached to the plaint. The claim of the plaintiff is that the suit properties belonged to the estate of Haji Abdul Rahman, who died on 7-10-1974, and she being his only daughter is entitled to a half share therein. According to the plaintiff, her father had three wives and her mother was the first wife, who predeceased her father. Defendants 1 and 2 are the other wives. Defendants 4 and 5 are the brothers of the deceased, defendants 6 to 10 are the sisters, 11th defendant is the son of the third defendant, while the 12th defendant is the daughter of the third defendent. Defendants 13 to 18 are impleaded as lessees and tenants in the suit properties. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 6 are each entitled to 2/32 share and defendants 7 to 10 are entitled to 1/32 share each. There was no dispute in the trial Court regarding the division of ‘A’ Schedule properties. Defendants 1, 11 and 12 are the main contesting defendants. According to them, the second defendant is not a legally wedded wife of the deceased and some of the suit properties belonged to them exclusively and some of the properties are not available for partition, as a few of them are non-existent and the remaining are dedicated to a Wakf. The plaintiff gave up her claim to ‘L’ Schedule at the time of trial. The trial Court has passed a decree for partition and separate possession of half share in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Schedules ‘A’ to ‘I’, items 2, 4, 5, 6 and 14 to 21 in ‘J’ Schedule, item 2 in ‘K’ Schedule ‘M’ and ‘N’ Schedule properties. The trial Court has held that the second defendant is a legally married wife of the deceased and is entitled to 1/32 share. Defendants 1, 11 and 12 are directed by the decree to render accounts to the plaintiff in respect of Schedule ‘B’ to ‘G’ from the date of death of Abdul Rahman, i.e., 7-10-1974. The suit is dismissed in other respects. Aggrieved by that decree, defendants 1, 11 and 12 have preferred this appeal. The plaintiff has preferred a Memorandum of Cross Objections in so far as the decree of the trial Court is against her. Pending the appeal, the first defendant, who is the first appellant, died and the remaining appellants have been recorded as her legal representatives, besides appellants 4 and 5, who have been brought on record as such. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the parties by their rank in the trial Court.

2. Status of the Second Defendant: The first question to be decided is whether the second defendant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased father of the plaintiff. The first defendant in her written statement has stated that the plaintiff has been falsely putting up the second defendant as the wife of her father with ulterior motives to minimise her share. She was married to Abdul Rahman on 21-4-1946 and she is his only surviving wife. The difference in age between the first defendant and the second defendant, even as shown in the plaint, is pointed out in the written statement and it is added that the second defendant could never have been the second wife of Abdul Rahman. The second defendant in her written statement has asserted that she married the deceased Abdul Rahman in a function held in P.N.S. Mahal at Madurai on 25-6-1961 according to Muslim rites and ceremonies and the same has been recorded in the relevant registers maintained in the normal and routine course by East Street Muslim Jamath Pallivasal at Kilakkarai in Ramanathapuram District. The deceased declared her as his wife during his lifetime in several documents and records. She has travelled with her husband twice to Singapore holding passports and other travel documents recording her status as the wife of Abdul Rahman. She had lived with him in India and