https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287464 The suit property was held to belong to the respondent because the appellant, acting as her agent and power-of-attorney holder, used her funds, procured the purchase in execution, and entered his name in the sale certificate without her knowledge or consent. Section 66 CPC did not bar the claim because it preserves suits where the certified purchaser's name was inserted fraudulently or without the real purchaser's consent. The fiduciary exception under Section 4(3) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, also applied, and Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 supported the conclusion that an agent acquiring property in such circumstances holds it for the principal. Declaration of title and recovery of possession were therefore rightly granted to the respondent. en-us Tue, 16 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:21:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287464 The suit property was held to belong to the respondent because the appellant, acting as her agent and power-of-attorney holder, used her funds, procured the purchase in execution, and entered his name in the sale certificate without her knowledge or consent. Section 66 CPC did not bar the claim because it preserves suits where the certified purchaser's name was inserted fraudulently or without the real purchaser's consent. The fiduciary exception under Section 4(3) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, also applied, and Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 supported the conclusion that an agent acquiring property in such circumstances holds it for the principal. Declaration of title and recovery of possession were therefore rightly granted to the respondent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287464