R RAJAGOPAL REDDY Vs. PADMINI CHANDRASEKHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of matters a common question arises for our consideration. It is to the following effect "whether Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'Act') can be applied to suit, claim or action to enforce any right in property held benami against person in whose name such property is held or any other person. If such proceeding is initiated by or on behalf of a person claiming to be real owner thereof, prior to the coming into force of Section 4(1) of the Act'. Section 4 with its relevant sub-sections reads as under:-

(2.) In fact the question is answered in the affirmative by a Division Bench of this Court in Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare (1989) 1 SCR 621 . In that case two learned Judges of this Court constituting the Division Bench have taken the aforesaid affirmative view. The correctness of that view came up for consideration before another Division Bench of this Court. That Division Bench by its order dated 10th March, 1992 directed that these matters be placed for hearing at the bottom of the miscellaneous list for final hearing on 22nd March, 1992 before a three Judge Bench. Ultimately this group of matters came to be placed for final hearing before this Bench.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties on this question. Learned advocates were agreeable that though the order of the Division Bench dated 10th March, 1992 has resulted in placing these mattes before three-Judge Bench for final hearing, we may after answering the question canvassed before us, sent back the matters to the Bench of two learned Judges who can dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law, in the light of answer given by us on the aforesaid question.