J U D G M E N T

A third party who originally sought impleadment in the proceedings for delivery of property pursuant to a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale in O.S. No.105 of 1996 and whose application as directed by this Court in W.P(C) No.19413 of 2010 was treated as one under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and lost it as also the first appeal, has come to this Court urging by way of substantial questions of law whether interpretation given by the courts below on Section 3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is correct and whether courts below have overlooked the common law principle of common intention trust?

2. This case has a chequered career. Alleging that the second respondent (wife of appellant) executed an agreement for sale of the suit property first respondent filed O.S. No.105 of 1996 for specific performance. After a severe contest by the second respondent the suit was decreed which was confirmed by the first appellate court and later by this Court. Following that, first respondent filed application in the trial court under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act for execution of the assignm