Benami transaction proved by unexplained funds and admitted use of another's name; provisional attachment upheld.

Property purchased in another's name was treated as benami where the record showed no disclosed independent source for the named purchaser, the parties' statements indicated use of the beneficial owner's funds, and the money trail linked the land acquisition to later purchase of a vehicle. On those facts, the transaction fell within the benami definition under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act. The challenge to confirmation of provisional attachment also failed because the same material supported the Adjudicating Authority's findings and no credible explanation for the source of funds was offered. The impugned order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the purchase of the land and the motor vehicle was shown to be a benami transaction within the meaning of Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. (ii) Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the purchase of the land and the motor vehicle was shown to be a benami transaction within the meaning of Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988.

Analysis: The material on record showed that the appellant in whose name the property stood had no disclosed source to purchase land worth more than Rs. 27 lakhs, while his own statement and the statement of the other appellant indicated that the property was purchased by using his name. The sequence further showed that the land was later acquired and the compensation was used for purchasing the vehicle, with the registration document found with the other appellant. The admitted use of the benamidar's name, absence of proved independent of funds, and the money trail supported the finding that the initial acquisition was from the beneficial owner and not from the benamidar's own means.

Conclusion: The transaction was rightly treated as benami.

Issue (ii): Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment called for interference.

Analysis: In view of the material establishing the benami nature of the transaction and the lack of any credible explanation for the source of funds, the Tribunal found no merit in the challenge to the attachment order. The findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority were supported by the statements and surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: The confirmation of provisional attachment did not warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on merits and the impugned order was sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the admitted statements, surrounding circumstances, and unexplained source of funds establish that property was acquired in another's name through the beneficial owner's funds, the transaction is benami and the resulting attachment is liable to be upheld.

---