Fiduciary-capacity exception under benami law cannot be extended to a mother without a recognised statutory basis.

A second appeal under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 requires a substantial question of law, and the benami defence cannot be saved by Section 4(3)(b) unless the fiduciary-capacity exception is actually made out. The Delhi High Court noted that a mother does not, merely because she is the appellant's parent, hold property in a fiduciary capacity to her major son for this purpose. It also observed that the statute creates only a limited express exception for purchase in the name of a wife or unmarried daughter, with no comparable presumption for a mother. The authorities cited did not extend the exception, so the benami bar remained applicable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second appeal disclosed any substantial question of law, and whether the appellant could invoke the fiduciary-capacity exception under Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 on the plea that the property was purchased in the name of the mother with the appellant's funds.

Analysis: A second appeal lies only when a substantial question of law arises. The plea raised was that the respondent, being the appellant's mother, held the property in a fiduciary capacity and that the transaction therefore fell within the exception in Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The Court held that a mother does not, merely by reason of the parent-child relationship, stand in a fiduciary capacity to her major son for such a transaction. The statutory scheme also showed that the legislature created a limited express exemption for purchase in the name of wife or unmarried daughter, and no similar presumption or exception exists for purchase in the name of a mother. The authorities relied upon by the appellant were found not to support the claimed extension of the exception, and the benami defence remained barred by the statute.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The fiduciary-capacity exception was inapplicable, and the appeal failed.

---