RAMACHANDRA RAO P Vs. JANGAIAH G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff in O. S. No. 208 of 1974. The suit is based on an oral contract of sale to convey the suit property for valuable consideration to the appellant. It is his case that G. Jangaiah, the first defendant is the real owner of the property and that Natraj, his minor son, and V. Dayanand, the fourth defendant, the son in law, are benamidars for the benefit of the first defendant. He received valuable consideration as earnest money and entered into the contract, but he refused to execute the sale deed despite several legal notices, constraining the appellant to lay the suit for specific performance. The trial Court framed issue No. 1.

(2.) SECS . 3 and 4 are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal and are hence omitted. A reading thereof clearly manifests the legislative intention that the Ordinance intends to prohibit the right to recover property held benami and "incidental matters". The prohibition is to lay the suit or to enforce any claim or action based on benami transaction against a person in whose name the property is held or against any other person and such a suit shall not lie by operation of sub s. (1) of S. 2 of the Ordinance. Sec. 23 of the Contract Act prohibits any transaction which is opposed to the public policy to be void and is unenforceable. The word "benami" has been considered in Sree Meenakshi Mills' Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 28 (SC), thus:

(3.) HOWEVER , the decree of the trial Court against the first respondent granting refund of the earnest money paid, is confirmed. The suit does not lie for specific performance. The decree of the trial Court is accordingly confirmed. It is open to the appellant to withdraw the amount which is deposited in the Court below. In the circumstances, each party is directed to bear its own costs in this appeal.