Benami claim barred in amendment, but challenge to gift deed allowed where earlier time-limited request was already made.

A proposed amendment setting up that the plaintiff's father was the real owner and the mother a benamidar was barred, because it would enforce a right in property held benami in a pending proceeding under section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and the pleaded wife/minor daughter exception was not established. An amendment seeking a declaration that a gift deed was void, though brought after limitation had run, was allowed because the earlier amendment application had been filed within limitation and later withdrawn with liberty to renew it, so the fresh request was treated as a continuation of the earlier one. The plaint could be amended only to that extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proposed amendment introducing a case that the plaintiff's father was the real owner and the mother was only a benamidar was barred by section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. (ii) Whether the amendment seeking a declaration that the gift deed was void, though introduced after the lapse of time, could still be allowed in the circumstances of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the proposed amendment introducing a case that the plaintiff's father was the real owner and the mother was only a benamidar was barred by section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Analysis: The proposed amendment sought to set up a new and inconsistent case that the property had been purchased by the plaintiff's father in the name of his wife and that the plaintiff traced title through the alleged real owner. Such a plea amounted to enforcement of a right in respect of property held benami against the person in whose name the property stood. Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 prohibits such a claim in a pending proceeding, and the exception relating to purchase for the benefit of wife or minor daughter was not made out on the pleadings.

Conclusion: The amendment on this issue was rightly rejected and is against the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment seeking a declaration that the gift deed was void, though introduced after the lapse of time, could still be allowed in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: Although an amendment introducing a time-barred relief is ordinarily not allowed, such relief may be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Here, the earlier amendment application had been filed within limitation and was later withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application. The subsequent application was therefore treated as a continuation of the earlier attempt to amend, and the court found no sufficient ground to deny amendment in respect of the relief attacking the gift deed.

Conclusion: The amendment on this issue was upheld and is in favour of the plaintiff.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of striking down the benami-related amendment, while the amendment relating to the challenge to the gift deed was sustained; the trial court was directed to permit the plaint to be amended only in the allowed part.

Ratio Decidendi: A proposed amendment setting up a benami claim barred by section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 cannot be allowed in a pending suit, but a time-barred amendment may still be permitted where the earlier application was filed within limitation and the circumstances justify continuation of the claim.

---