Benami ownership plea under statutory bar framed as a substantial question of law, with interim stay continued pending final hearing.

Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was treated as raising a substantial question of law where the defendant sought to assert exclusive ownership over property standing in his mother's name. The Bombay HC held that the nature of the suit property and the legal effect of the benami plea required adjudication in second appeal, and admitted the appeal on the framed substantial questions of law. It also continued interim stay on the terms sought in the civil applications pending final hearing and disposal of the second appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second appeal should be admitted on substantial questions of law concerning the nature of the suit property and the plea of benami ownership. (ii) Whether interim stay should continue pending final disposal of the second appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the second appeal should be admitted on substantial questions of law concerning the nature of the suit property and the plea of benami ownership.

Analysis: The order records that the challenge raises a legal issue as to whether the defendant could be permitted to assert exclusive ownership of property standing in the name of his mother in view of the bar under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The Court treated that question, along with the character of the property, as requiring adjudication in second appeal and found that the case involved a limited legal point fit for admission.

Conclusion: The second appeal was admitted on the framed substantial questions of law.

Issue (ii): Whether interim stay should continue pending final disposal of the second appeal.

Analysis: After admitting the appeal and expediting its hearing, the Court granted continuation of stay on the terms sought in the civil applications until the second appeal is finally heard and decided.

Conclusion: Interim stay was granted and the civil applications were disposed of.

Final Conclusion: The order finally determined only admission of the appeal and interim protection, while leaving the merits of title and benami defence for decision in the second appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A legal plea that the real owner of property standing in another's name is barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 may constitute a substantial question warranting admission of a second appeal where the issue requires adjudication on the legal effect of the statutory bar.

---