Benami transaction definition applied where property was bought in another's name with trust funds for the trusts' future benefit.

A transaction is benami where property is taken in one person's name, consideration is supplied by another, and the arrangement is intended for that other person's immediate or future benefit. On the stated facts, agricultural lands were acquired in the name of an individual using funds of the trusts, so the statutory definition was satisfied and the non-benami finding could not stand. The fiduciary exception did not apply because the arrangement was not a genuine fiduciary holding, and the Section 53A part-performance explanation was also unavailable since the transaction did not meet its statutory conditions. The Benami Act therefore continued to apply to the properties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned properties answered the definition of a benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. (ii) Whether the arrangement was excluded from the definition of benami transaction on the grounds of fiduciary capacity or by reason of the explanation relating to possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned properties answered the definition of a benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Analysis: A transaction falls within the statutory definition where property is transferred to or held by one person while consideration is provided by another, and the property is held for the immediate or future benefit of the person providing the consideration. The record showed that the consideration for the agricultural lands was provided by the trusts, the properties were taken in the name of Shri Narendra Lamba, and the arrangement was intended to secure eventual benefit for the trusts. The absence of a continued title-holding by the benamidar after the transfer did not take the arrangement outside the statutory language, because the provision is satisfied once the property is transferred to or held by a person for the benefit of another on consideration supplied by that other person.

Conclusion: The impugned properties were benami transactions within Section 2(9)(A) and the finding of non-benami nature was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the arrangement was excluded from the definition of benami transaction on the grounds of fiduciary capacity or by reason of the explanation relating to possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Analysis: The fiduciary exception applies only where the person standing in such capacity genuinely holds the property for another in the legally recognised fiduciary sense. The materials, including the MoUs and the surrounding conduct, showed that the name of Shri Lamba was used to acquire agricultural land that the trusts could not directly purchase at the relevant time, and the arrangement was structured for the trusts' ultimate benefit rather than as a true fiduciary holding. The explanation linked to part performance under Section 53A was also inapplicable, because the arrangement was not confined to a simple seller-buyer contract and did not satisfy the statutory exclusion conditions in the manner required by the provision.

Conclusion: The fiduciary exception and the Section 53A explanation did not apply, and the properties remained within the scope of the Benami Act.

Final Conclusion: The appellate tribunal held that the impugned orders could not stand, the references were liable to be sustained as benami cases, and the appeals of the Initiating Officer succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A transaction is benami when consideration is supplied by one person and the property is taken in another's name for that person's immediate or future benefit, and the statutory exceptions for fiduciary holding and part-performance possession are available only when their specific legal requirements are strictly satisfied.

---