Benami bar and fiduciary exception require evidence where plaint pleads beneficial holding for the claimant.

A plaint specifically alleging that property stood in a father's name but was held for the benefit of the claimant, with funds said to have been provided by the claimant, could not be rejected at the threshold as barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 solely on the pleadings. The Delhi HC noted that the statutory bar and the claimed fiduciary exception under Section 4(3)(b) depended on the factual matrix and evidence, not on a bare label in the plaint. The dismissal was therefore unsustainable, and the suit was restored for adjudication on merits before the trial court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was liable to be dismissed as barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 on the pleadings alone. (ii) Whether the claimed fiduciary relationship brought the transaction within the exception under Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and therefore required trial.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was liable to be dismissed as barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 on the pleadings alone.

Analysis: The plaint contained a specific case that the property was acquired in the name of the father, but was held for the benefit of the appellant, with funds allegedly provided by the appellant and the father acting in relation to the property on his behalf. In such a setting, the statutory bar could not be decided purely as a matter of law without testing the pleaded foundation by evidence, particularly after issues had already been framed and the matter had proceeded to trial.

Conclusion: The suit could not be summarily dismissed as barred on the plaint averments alone.

Issue (ii): Whether the claimed fiduciary relationship brought the transaction within the exception under Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and therefore required trial.

Analysis: The exception for a fiduciary relationship depends on the factual context and cannot be determined by a bare label in the pleadings. Whether the arrangement was a genuine fiduciary holding or merely a benami device required examination of the surrounding facts and evidence. The exception under Section 4(3)(b) could not be negated at the threshold merely because the plaint used the expression benami in describing the transaction.

Conclusion: The applicability of Section 4(3)(b) was a mixed question of law and fact and had to be decided after evidence.

Final Conclusion: The impugned dismissal was unsustainable and the suit was restored for adjudication on merits before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a plaint specifically pleads a fiduciary holding covered by the statutory exception to the benami bar, the question cannot be decided summarily at the threshold and must ordinarily be determined on evidence.

---