Benami Transaction Definition expanded to include continued holding post amendment, capturing pre amendment transfers where consideration paid by another.

A transaction where consideration was paid by one person and title was registered in another falls within the benami definition because the fiduciary exception does not apply where title has passed to the benamidar; accordingly the transaction qualifies as a benami transaction. The Amending Act, 2016 expanded the statutory concept to capture both transfer and continued holding, and therefore applies where the benamidar continued to hold the property on or after 01.11.2016 even if the transfer occurred earlier. Operatively, the transactions meet the amended definition, statutory exceptions are inapplicable, and the provisional attachment is sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transaction and registration of land fall within the definition of "benami transaction" under Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; (ii) Whether the amended definition in the Amending Act of 2016 (effective 01.11.2016) applies where the transfer occurred before amendment but the property was held by the benamidar on and after 01.11.2016.

Issue (i): Whether the facts satisfy Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Analysis: The definition in Section 2(9)(A) requires (a) transfer to or holding by a person where consideration is provided or paid by another, and (b) the property is held for the immediate or future benefit of the person who provided the consideration, subject to listed exceptions including holding in a fiduciary capacity. Admitted facts show the land was registered in the name of third parties while the consideration was paid by another person and, after conversion from agricultural to non agricultural, the beneficial owner obtained the property. The fiduciary exception requires that title not have passed by a concluded transaction; registration in the name of the benamidar with transfer of title indicates the exception does not apply.

Conclusion: The transaction falls within Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; conclusion is in favour of the Respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the Amending Act of 2016 applies prospectively only, or applies where the property was held by the benamidar on and after 01.11.2016 despite transfer before that date.

Analysis: The amended definition expanded the concept by including both transfer and holding; the statutory term "held" must be given effect. Where a person continues to hold the property on the date the amendment came into force (01.11.2016) or thereafter, and the consideration was provided by another, the amended definition captures such continuing holding even if the transfer occurred earlier. Prior authority holding prospective effect has been reconsidered; the factual admission that the property was held by benamidars on and after 01.11.2016 brings the transaction within the amended definition.

Conclusion: The Amending Act of 2016 applies to a transaction where the benamidar was holding the property on or after 01.11.2016; conclusion is in favour of the Respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed because the transactions satisfy the amended definition of benami transaction and none of the statutory exceptions apply; the provisional attachment confirmation is sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where consideration for a property was provided by one person and the property continued to be held by another person on the date the Amendment Act, 2016 came into force (01.11.2016) or thereafter, such holding falls within Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, notwithstanding that the transfer occurred before the amendment.

---