Benami ownership plea requires specific pleading of known sources of income before declaration relief can proceed.

A claim to absolute ownership over property held in joint names was not entertained because the plaint did not specifically plead that the consideration came from the plaintiff's known sources of income, which was necessary to invoke the statutory exception under the Benami law. The court noted that the admitted joint title and absence of an averment on relevant income could not be cured by evidence at that stage, so the declaration relief failed in its present form; however, the suit could proceed on injunctive relief, and interim restraint was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a claim for declaration of absolute ownership over property standing in joint names was barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 in the absence of a specific plea that the consideration came from the plaintiff's known sources of income; and whether interim restraint could be granted pending proper pleadings.

Analysis: The plaint admitted joint title. The statutory exception relied upon required a specific pleading that the consideration had been paid out of the known sources of the individual claiming the benefit of the exception. The plaint did not contain such an averment, nor did it plead the plaintiff's income for the relevant year. The Court also noted that, without the necessary plea, evidence could not cure the defect at that stage. On that basis, the declaration claim was not entertained in its present form, though the plaintiff was permitted to confine the suit to injunctive relief and the suit was entertained subject to that course.

Outcome: The declaration claim was not entertained in the absence of the required pleading, but the suit was allowed to proceed for injunction and interim restraint was granted.

---