Benami transaction principle applied where property stood in one name but funds, control and benefit came from another person.

Property registered in one person's name was treated as benami where the consideration was traced to another person, the nominal holder lacked financial capacity and meaningful contribution, and the record showed the name was used only to facilitate the purchase. An asserted partnership-based explanation did not displace the finding that the registered owner was only a namesake holder with no beneficial interest. Restrictions on tribal land transfer were noted as explaining the registration device, but they did not change the character of the transaction once the source of funds and control were established. The transaction was therefore within the statutory concept of benami property, and provisional attachment was confirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the purchase of the property in the appellant's name, with consideration allegedly paid by another through a firm and in the backdrop of restrictions on tribal land transfer, constituted a benami transaction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Analysis: The property was registered in the appellant's name, but the consideration was traced to the beneficial owner and not to the appellant. The appellant lacked the financial capacity to make the purchase, had no meaningful capital contribution, and the material on record supported the conclusion that his name was used to facilitate the transaction. The claimed partnership-based explanation did not displace the finding that the appellant was only a namesake holder and that the land was ultimately acquired for the benefit of the real fund provider. The restriction under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code also explained the device adopted for registration, but did not alter the character of the transaction once the source of consideration and control were established.

Conclusion: The transaction fell within the statutory concept of benami transaction, and the confirmation of provisional attachment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where property is purchased in one person's name but the consideration is paid by another, and the nominal holder lacks real financial contribution or beneficial interest, the arrangement is a benami transaction notwithstanding any asserted nominal or fiduciary role.

---