B G GANGADHARAPPA Vs. S CHANDRASHEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this regular second appeal by the plaintiff appellant is against the decree dated 13th june, 1979 made in r. A. No. 92 of 1976 on the file of the 8th additional civil judge, Bangalore city, confirming the decree dated 23-2-1976 made in o.s. No. 2389 of 1964 on the file of the first additional munsiff, Bangalore.

(2.) this court while admitting the appeal framed the following substantial questions for consideration, which reads as under: (1) whether the lower appellate court after having come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established that the sale deed dated 19-7-1928 standing in the name of the deceased 2nd defendant, was a benami transaction and in reality it was intended for the joint family of the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4, was justified in taw in holding that the transfer made in favour of 1st defendant was valid without recording a finding in terms of the Provisions contained in Section 41 of the Transfer Of Property Act. (2) whether the finding of the lower appellate court that the transfer made by the 1st defendant in favour 5th defendant was a valid transfer is justified in law.

(3.) when the matter came up for hearing as the Provisions of benamitran sactions (prohibition) Act, 1988 had came into force and the learned judge b.p. singh, j. On consideration of the respective contentions of the parties felt that the case involves important question of law which arc required to be considered by the division bench. They are as follows: (a) whether Section 3 of the Act, which is prospective in operation and which prohibits any person from entering into a bcnami transaction and makes the breach punishable i.s a punitive provision which docs not in any manner control the scope and operation of Section 4, which extinguishes the civil rights of those who may claim to be the real owners any right or interest in the property held benami and applies to pending proceedings as well? (b) whether the extinguishment of the rights under Section 4 operates as a bar to a suit by a person claiming as real owner any right or interest in the properly held benami, against the bcnamidar or any other person, notwithstanding the exceptions in Section 3(2), but subject to the exceptions contemplated by scclion 4(3) of the act?