Benami property under PBPTA affirmed where trusts funded purchase and title stood in another's name for their benefit.

Property acquired in the name of Shri Narendra Lamba was treated as benami under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 because the trusts provided the consideration and the lands were intended for their benefit. The tribunal held that Section 2(9)(A) was satisfied where consideration moved from one person and title stood in another's name, and continued possession by the beneficial owner did not negate benami character. The fiduciary-capacity exclusion was rejected because the MoUs showed Lamba acted as a name-lender rather than a genuine fiduciary. The Section 53A-based exclusion also failed, and the later Karnataka Land Reforms Act amendment did not change the PBPTA analysis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned agricultural properties were benami transactions within the meaning of Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and whether the claimed exclusions based on fiduciary capacity and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applied.

Analysis: The consideration for the properties was provided by the trusts, while the properties were transferred in the name of Shri Narendra Lamba and were intended for the immediate or future benefit of the trusts. The requirement of Section 2(9)(A) was held to be satisfied because the statute covers property transferred to or held by one person where consideration is provided by another, and it does not require the benamidar to continue holding the property after transfer. The claimed fiduciary exception was not accepted because the arrangement was supported by MoUs showing that Shri Lamba acted as a name-lender to facilitate purchase, conversion, and eventual transfer of the lands to the trusts. The exclusion under the Explanation to Section 2(9) based on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was also found inapplicable because the transactions involved a third-party beneficial arrangement and did not answer the statutory requirements of that exclusion. The subsequent amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 did not alter the benami character of the transactions under the PBPTA.

Conclusion: The properties were benami properties, and the orders refusing to confirm attachment were unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A transaction falls within Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 when consideration is provided by one person and the property is transferred to another for that person's benefit, and the benami character is not negated merely because the beneficial owner remains in possession or because the arrangement is asserted to be fiduciary without satisfying the statutory exception.

---