Fiduciary purchase and benami exception sustain title and possession relief in favour of the real purchaser.

The suit property was held to belong to the respondent because the appellant, acting as her agent and power-of-attorney holder, used her funds, procured the purchase in execution, and entered his name in the sale certificate without her knowledge or consent. Section 66 CPC did not bar the claim because it preserves suits where the certified purchaser's name was inserted fraudulently or without the real purchaser's consent. The fiduciary exception under Section 4(3) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, also applied, and Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 supported the conclusion that an agent acquiring property in such circumstances holds it for the principal. Declaration of title and recovery of possession were therefore rightly granted to the respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit property vested in the appellant or in the respondent, and whether a declaration of title and recovery of possession was barred by Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Analysis: The property was purchased in execution by the appellant, but the finding was that he acted as agent and power-of-attorney holder of the respondent, used her funds for the purchase and improvements, and got his name entered in the sale certificate without her knowledge or consent. On those facts, the purchase was held to have been made for the benefit of the respondent. Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while barring benami claims against court-auction purchasers, preserves suits where the name of the certified purchaser was inserted fraudulently or without the consent of the real purchaser. The fiduciary exception under Section 4(3) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, also applied because the appellant held the property in a fiduciary character as trustee for the respondent. Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, supported the conclusion that an agent who acquires property in such circumstances holds it for the principal.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred, the title was held to be in the respondent, and the declaration and recovery of possession were rightly granted in her favour.

---