KESHAB CHANDRA NAYAK Vs. LAXMIDHAR NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference to the Full Bewnch has been made by a learned single Judge to decide whether the view expressed principally in Kailash Chandra Sahu v. Mahani Charan Mohanty, (1988) 62 CLT 261, by a learned single Judge of this Court which was approved by a Division Bench of this Court in Ramachandra v. Suresh Chandra, 1988 (1) OLR 185, that consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide a question relating to benami nature of transaction is correct or not.

(2.) To answer the reference, it would be apposite at the very outset to know what is meant by a "benami" transaction, as it would appear from what is being stated later that, in fact, there is no clash in the view taken in the aforesaid decisions and the one which the learned Judge making the reference had taken in Civil Revision No. 351 of 1983 (Hrudananda Panda v. Dhirendra Behura, disposed of on 30-4-1985), which view, the learned Judge felt is correct despite what was held in the aforesaid two decisions. The discussion to follow would show that both the views are correct and can stand together, if note is taken about what is really meant by 'benami' transaction.

(3.) The word 'benami' really denotes two classes of transactions which differ from each other in their legal character and instance. The following passage from paragraph 14 of Bhim Singh v. Kam Singh, AIR 1980 SC 727, brings out the distinction between the two classes of transactions at page 732 :-