1999 (12) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or allowing this appeal. It appears that the appellant had sent money from abroad to the respondent to enable him to purchase immovable property in the name of the appellant. The respondent purchased properties in his own name and in the names of his other brothers in India. The appellant on July 20, 1983, filed O. S. No. 349 of 1983 for possession of the suit property or its market value. The cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... defendant in O.S. No. 349 of 1983, for the specific purpose of purchasing landed properties in the name of the plaintiff, but, instead, he purchased the properties in the name of himself and his other brothers with the funds so provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, it has to be held that the plaintiff is the beneficial owner and he is entitled to recover possession of the plaint schedule properti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed August 2, 1988, the petition was allowed and in the impugned judgment it was observed that the said Ordinance of 1988 prohibited the recovery of possession of the suit property which was being held by the respondent as a benami of the appellant herein. It is now well settled that the executing court cannot go behind the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction except when the decree is void....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of the Benami Transactions Ordinance or the Act did not arise. The provisions of the Act did not prohibit a suit being filed against a trustee for the recovery of the trust property. That apart, this court in R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan [1995] 213 ITR 340, has held that the said Act and the Ordinance were not retrospective in operation and the Act did not apply to pending suit....