Fiduciary capacity under benami law can protect family property held in one heir's name when others contributed to purchase.

Property purchased in one heir's name may fall outside the benami bar where other heirs contributed to the consideration and the title holder retained the property for convenience within a relationship of trust and confidence. The Court treated the contribution finding as factual, accepted that the purchase money came from a joint account and shared resources, and held that the appellant did not pay the price alone. It further explained that "fiduciary capacity" under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is broad and can cover family or trust-based arrangements. On those facts, the suit was not barred by Section 4.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale consideration for purchase of the suit property was contributed by the appellant alone or by the parties jointly. (ii) Whether the suit was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, or was saved by the fiduciary-capacity exception under Section 4(3)(b) of that Act.

Issue (i): Whether the sale consideration for purchase of the suit property was contributed by the appellant alone or by the parties jointly.

Analysis: The evidence accepted by the Court showed that the demand draft for the purchase price was obtained from the joint account of one of the respondents and her husband, that the appellant had not operated the joint bank account on which he relied, and that the respondents' version of shared contribution was supported by the oral and documentary record. The Court found no perversity in the High Court's reappraisal of the evidence and treated the contribution finding as a pure finding of fact.

Conclusion: The sale consideration was not paid by the appellant alone, and the finding of joint contribution was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, or was saved by the fiduciary-capacity exception under Section 4(3)(b) of that Act.

Analysis: A benami transaction is one where property is transferred to one person for consideration paid by another, and Section 4 bars suits by the real owner to enforce rights in benami property. The Court held that the expression fiduciary capacity is broad and includes relationships founded on trust, confidence, and good faith. On the facts, the property was acquired in the appellant's name only because the corporation required transfer to a single individual, while the other legal heirs retained their interest and contributed to the purchase price. In that setting, the appellant held the ostensible title in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the other contributors.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, because the transaction fell within the exception in Section 4(3)(b).

Final Conclusion: The Court affirmed the decree in favour of the respondents, holding that the property was acquired through joint contribution and that the benami bar did not apply because the appellant held title in a fiduciary capacity.

Ratio Decidendi: Where property is purchased in the name of one legal heir for convenience, with contributions from other heirs and the family relationship showing trust and confidence, the holder of title may be treated as standing in a fiduciary capacity so that Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 does not bar a suit by the contributing heirs.

---