Benami transaction bar defeats partition claim where property stood in defendants' names and no statutory exception was proved.

A partition claim based on the assertion that the father paid the purchase consideration was barred where the suit property stood in the defendants' names under a registered sale deed. The Delhi HC noted that such a plea falls within the prohibition on benami claims under Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and that no exception under Section 4(3) was made out. There was no pleaded or proved Hindu Undivided Family, no material showing the property was thrown into common hotchpotch after 1956, and no basis for a trust or fiduciary capacity claim. The alleged minority of the transferees did not change the position, and the partition suit was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for partition was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and whether the plaintiff could claim a share on the footing that the consideration for the property was paid by the father.

Analysis: The suit property stood conveyed by a registered sale deed in the names of the defendants. A plea that the real owner was the father because he allegedly paid the consideration was held to be barred by Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The statutory exceptions under Section 4(3) were found unavailable because there was no pleaded or proved case of an existing Hindu Undivided Family, no material showing that the property had been thrown into common hotchpotch after 1956, and no case that the property was purchased in trust or in a fiduciary capacity. The Court also held that the alleged minority of the transferees did not alter the legal position, since a minor can be the beneficiary of ownership of immovable property. The earlier order in connected proceedings and the pleadings there did not amount to an admission that the property was a family property.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to establish that the property was outside the bar of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and the claim for partition was not maintainable.

---