Back
2026 Supreme(All) 584
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.
Dr. Brij Bhushan And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Satya Bhudhsn Verma – Respondent
Second Appeal No. - 308 of 2018
Decided On : 18-05-2026
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Title and Ownership Disputes
Act Referred
PROHIBITION OF BENAMI PROPERTY TRANSACTION ACT: S.2(8), S.2(9)
UTTAR PRADESH URBAN BUILDINGS REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION ACT: S.2(a)
EASEMENTS ACT: S.60
BENAMI TRANSACTIONS PROHIBITION ACT: S.4(1)
Headnote
(B) Benami transaction - Defense - Bar under Section 4: The 1988 Act is not retroactive in nullifying past transactions; however, Section 4 bars the assertion of a benami defense in any suit, claim, or action filed after the commencement of the Act. The rigor of Section 4(2) precludes a party from claiming to be the real owner to defeat the title of the registered holder unless an exception is satisfied. (Para 45, 51).
(C) License - Revocability - Section 60 of Easements Act: A license is generally revocable; it becomes irrevocable only if the licensee, acting upon the license, executes a work of permanent character and incurs expenses, leading to estoppel by acquiescence. Occupation of property as a licensee does not confer ownership rights. (Para 25, 32).
Facts of the case:
The dispute involved property purchased in the names of two individuals. An occupant, claiming to be an owner, asserted that the property was acquired using joint funds and that the registered owners were mere benamidars. The registered owners filed a suit for possession and mandatory injunction, contending the occupant was a licensee. Both lower courts decreed the suit in favor of the registered owners.
Findings of Court:
The property was not proved to be acquired through joint family funds or in a fiduciary capacity; rather, the registered owners were confirmed as having title. The occupant failed to prove ownership and was found to be a licensee. The defense of benami was barred under the 1988 Act as the suit was filed post-enactment.
Issues: The main issues were whether the defense of benami transaction was permissible under the 1988 Act in a suit filed after its enforcement and whether the occupier held the status of an owner or a licensee regarding the premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The legal bar under Section 4 of the 1988 Act prevents a party from raising a benami defense in litigation initiated after the Act's commencement. Lacking evidence to prove the property was acquired for the benefit of all family members or that the registered title was a sham, the title remains with the registered owners, and an unauthorized occupant is liable for eviction.
Result: Second appeal dismissed; concurrent findings affirmed.
For the Appellant : Dr. Ramsurat Pande, Ankit Pande, Shashank Bhushan Singh, Virendra Bhatt
For the Respondent: Yogendra Singh, Ashok Kumar Srivastava
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case history and framing of substantial questions of law. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions regarding ownership, benami status, and license usage. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 3. review and assessment of lower court factual findings. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 4. applicability of benami transactions act and proof of property acquisition. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal confirming concurrent findings. (Para 60 , 61) |
JUDGMENT :
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard submissions of Sri R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ankit Pandey and Sri Shashank Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Yogendra Singh and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava appearing on behalf of the respondent and perused the record.
2. By means of instant second appeal preferred under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant-appellants in Original Suit No.391 of 2000, Shukhnandan Satya Bhushan Verma versus Dr. Brij Bhushan and two others, have assailed the concurrent findings of judgments of both courts below. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.22, Lucknow, had decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents in respect of the suit property, which is House No.531/16Ga, situated at Bhindiya Tola, Bara Chaandganj, Lucknow. The learned trial court issued a mandatory injunction to defendant-appellant Dr. Brij Bhushan to vacate one-half of the western portion of the said house under his occupation, which consists of a room and veranda, kitchen, latrine, bathroom, gallery and staircase on the ground floor and construciton raised on the first floor thereof within prescribed period and hand over the possession of the said portion of the house to the plaintiff no.2. The learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and order dated 17/01/2006. This judgment and decree was assailed by the defendant-appellant before the Court of District Judge, Lucknow by preferring a civil appeal i.e. Regular Civil Appeal No.6500026 of 2006, Dr. Brij Bhushan and others versus Satya Bhushan Verma. The civil appeal was decided by Additional District Judge/Special Judge EC Act, Lucknow, vide judgment and order dated 27/07/2018, whereby the civil appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court dated 17/01/2006 and decree dated 31/01/2006 was affirmed.
3. This Court, at the stage of admission of the second appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law, which are extracted below:
(E) Whether the finding recorded by the courts below are tenable in law as it has held that the PROHIBITION OF BENAMI PROPERTY TRANSACTION ACT 1988 has retrospective operation and the plea of Benami transaction is barred under Section 4 of the said Act without considering the definition of Benami property and Benami Transaction contained in Section 2(8) and (9) of the aforesaid Act.
(F) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below is perverse in law and facts, both.
4. Learned counsel for the defendant appellants submitted that the plaintiff No.2/respondent along with Sukhnandan filed a suit for possession and Mandatory Injunction which was registered as Regular suit No.331/2000 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division Court No.22 Lucknow with the averments that the suit is being filed for possession and damages as well as for Mandatory Injunction in respect of the house No.531/16Ga, situate in Bhindia Tola Bara Chaandganj, Lucknow towards Western portion of residential part of the house of which ½ portion is in the ownership of defendant /appellant No.2 and 1/2 portion under plaintiff No.2/Respondent. The said land has been purchased in the name of the defendant/appellant No.2 and plaintiff/respondent by hi
