C CHANDRAN Vs. GANGADHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in 0. S. No. 349 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Palghat, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE respondent instituted the suit for recovery of the property in dispute on the strength of title. THE suit has been decreed, accepting the case of the plaintiff that the property belongs to him, although it stands in the name of the petitioner-defendant. THE petitioner-defendant has been found to be only a benamidar. A reference in this connection to the following excerpts from the judgment of this court in Narayanan v. Gangadharan [1989] 180 ITR 491 (Ker), (by this judgment, this court disposed of the appeal where the decree sought to be executed was under attack) is relevant (at p. 502 of 180 ITR) :

(3.) THE section says that no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. This section thus prohibits the institution of suits, preferring of "claims" or "actions" to enforce any right, the real owner in a benami transaction has in respect of any property standing in the name of the benamidar. What then is the scope and effect of this section which contains prohibitive words.