Benami suit injunctions require prima facie proof and mandatory section 281A compliance before interim relief can be granted.

In a benami-related suit, temporary injunction requires a proper prima facie assessment of the source of consideration, custody of title deeds, motive, possession, relationship and conduct of the parties; reliance on only one factor is insufficient, and the injunction could not be sustained. Compliance with section 281A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is mandatory and operates as a condition precedent to the maintainability of a benami-based suit. Where the plaint did not show prior statutory compliance, the plaintiff had no prima facie basis for interim relief, and the injunction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order granting temporary injunction could be sustained when the court below did not properly evaluate the material relevant to a benami dispute and the ingredients for interim relief; (ii) whether compliance with section 281A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was a condition precedent to the institution of the suit and, if not complied with, whether interim relief could be granted.

Issue (i): whether the order granting temporary injunction could be sustained when the court below did not properly evaluate the material relevant to a benami dispute and the ingredients for interim relief.

Analysis: In a dispute alleging benami purchase, the source of consideration, custody of the original title deed, motive for benami, possession, relationship of the parties and their conduct are material factors. The court below relied mainly on custody of the original sale deed and did not record a proper prima facie finding on the source of consideration or on the effect of the documents relied upon by both sides. The findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury were therefore not supported by adequate consideration of the relevant material.

Conclusion: The order granting temporary injunction could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): whether compliance with section 281A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was a condition precedent to the institution of the suit and, if not complied with, whether interim relief could be granted.

Analysis: Section 281A, as amended with effect from 1 April 1984, bars a suit based on benami unless the prescribed notice is given to the Income-tax Commissioner and the statutory requirements are fulfilled before institution. The provision is mandatory in form and substance, and compliance is a condition precedent to the maintainability of such a suit. As there was no pleading showing compliance before filing, the plaintiff had no prima facie entitlement to institute the suit, and interim relief could not be granted on that footing.

Conclusion: Compliance with section 281A was mandatory and, on the record, the suit was not shown to be maintainable at the stage of interim relief.

Final Conclusion: The interim injunction was set aside, and the respondent was left to seek amendment and further consideration only if statutory compliance could be shown in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a benami-based suit, statutory compliance under section 281A is a condition precedent to maintainability, and interim injunction cannot be granted without a proper prima facie foundation on the relevant benami factors and the statutory bar.

---