Section 4 of the 1988 Act bars the defense of benami transaction in any litigation filed after the Act's commencement, even if the underlying transaction occurred prior to the Act. Registered owners maintain legal title unless statutory exceptions or proof of contrary fiduciary intent are clearly established.

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