Benami and limitation defences turn on proof of trust, fiduciary status, and a factual basis for delayed accrual.

A claim that property is held in trust or in a fiduciary capacity to avoid the benami prohibition must be supported by evidence; bare pleadings are insufficient. The alleged exception for express trust was not established, and the asserted resulting or implied trust could not defeat the statutory bar. The claimed fiduciary character of the holdings was also not proved, and the absence of the required declaration for beneficial ownership in company shares further weakened the case. Limitation likewise depended on an unproved factual basis for a later starting point, so the suit could not be treated as timely on the pleadings alone. Both preliminary objections failed against the plaintiff.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. (ii) Whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Analysis: The suit depended on an asserted family understanding that various properties and holdings stood in trust or in a fiduciary capacity for the family group as a whole. The Court held that such assertions required evidence and could not be accepted merely from the pleadings. The exception in section 4(3)(b) was not made out, because no express trust was pleaded or proved, and the case was at best one of an alleged resulting or implied trust, which could not sustain the claim. The claimed fiduciary character of the holdings was also not established. In relation to company shareholdings, the absence of the statutory declaration required for beneficial ownership further weakened the claim.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and the finding was against the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Limitation turned on disputed facts as to when the alleged family arrangement or adverse assertion first arose. The plaint itself referred to multiple alleged understandings and transfers over several years, but no evidence was led to establish the pleaded basis for a later starting point of limitation. On the plaintiff's own case, several alleged acts were much earlier and could not be saved. The Court therefore held that the suit could not be treated as in time on the basis of unsupported pleadings.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and the finding was against the plaintiff.

Final Conclusion: Both preliminary issues were answered against the plaintiff, and the suit was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim that property is held in trust or in a fiduciary capacity so as to escape the benami bar must be proved by evidence and cannot rest on pleadings alone; similarly, limitation cannot be avoided where the pleaded factual foundation itself is unproved.

---