Benami defence and guardianship permission: pre-existing defence survived, and alienation needed no minor's property approval.

Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 was held not to operate so as to extinguish a benami defence already raised before the statute commenced in pending proceedings, so the defence could not be rejected on that ground. Prior permission under section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1957 was also found unnecessary because the suit property was held to be the self-acquired property of defendant no. 2, not property in which the appellant had an enforceable minor's interest. On those grounds, the second appeal failed and the dismissal of the suit and first appeal was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 applied to the dispute so as to bar the defence based on benami transaction. (ii) Whether prior permission under section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1957 was required for the alienation of the suit property.

Issue (i): Whether the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 applied to the dispute so as to bar the defence based on benami transaction.

Analysis: The defence founded on benami was raised before the statute came into force. The controlling principle applied was that section 4 of the 1988 Act is not retrospective in the sense of extinguishing a defence already available in pending proceedings, though it restricts new suits and new defences after commencement. On the facts, the challenge to the alienation rested on a pre-existing plea and the Court held that the statute could not be used to disallow that defence in the present case.

Conclusion: The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 did not apply to defeat the defence in this case, and this question was answered against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether prior permission under section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1957 was required for the alienation of the suit property.

Analysis: The requirement of prior permission depended upon the plaintiff having a legally protected interest in the property as a minor's property. The concurrent finding was that the suit land was the self-acquired property of defendant no.2 and not property in which the appellant could assert an enforceable ownership right. On that footing, the statutory restriction governing alienation of a minor's property was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: Prior permission under section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1957 was not required, and this question was answered against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal failed because neither the benami statute nor the guardianship provision assisted the appellant, and the dismissal of the suit and the first appeal was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory bar on benami claims does not nullify a defence already taken before the statute's commencement, and permission for alienation under guardianship law is unnecessary where the property is held to be the alienor's self-acquired property rather than a minor's protected property.

---