A KODANDACHARI Vs. RADHAMMA ALIAS KANTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 329/1984 on the file of the I Additional Disirict Munsif. Chiltoor is the revision petitoner. The suit was filed tor declaration of title and some other consequential reliefs which are not relevant for disposal of this revision petition. The plaintiff filed I. A. No. 101 of 1989 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC praying for amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought is as under: "Delete is only banarnidar and he is real owner and in fact he" and substitute: "In a fiduciary capacity and title stood in her name for the benefit of plaintiff and the plaintiff".

(2.) The suit was presented in 1983. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter raferred to as 'the Act') had come into force during the pendency of this suit. It was held by the Supreme court in Mithiles Kumari vs. Prem Behari Khare (1) AIR 1989 S.C. 1247 that the above Act was retroactive and thus it is equally applicable to benami transactions that had taken place prior to the commencement of this Act.

(3.) It is evident that as per the proposed amendment the case of the plaintiff is that he comes under Sec. 4(3)(b) of the Act. Before commencement of the Act, there was no need for the plaintiff to specifically mention whether the benami transaction was of a category coming under Sec. 4(3) (b) of the Act. There is no inconsistency in the stand of the plaintiff. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff pleads that this is a particular type of Benami transaction which comes under Section 4(3) (b). It does not amount to a new case.