With respect to benami transactions
kavita.sharma
(Querist) 20 May 2012
This query is : Resolved
CAN SUCH PERSONS TO WHOM BENAMI ACT DOES'T APPLY BE PREVENTED FROM FURTHER SELLING TO 3RD PARTY IN THE LIGHT OF Samittri Devi and another Versus Sampuran Singh and another CASE RECENTLY DECIDED.
kavita.sharma
(Querist) 20 May 2012
IN THIS CASE BENIFIT PROPERTY WAS RESTORED TO REAL OWNER.ISSUE IN THIS CASE WERE 2..NOTICE AND PROOF OF REAL OWNERSHIP.
ashutosh mishra
(Expert) 20 May 2012
"CAN SUCH PERSONS TO WHOM BENAMI ACT DOES'T APPLY " are the words put by you in your query.......!?
Will you dear Kavita explain who are persons
to whom the Act does not apply.?
So far case Samittri Devi & Anr. vs Sampuran Singh & Anr. on 21 January, 2011 is concerned ,it deals with the date of applicability of section 4 of the Act where in law laid down in R.Rajagopal Reddy Vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan decided on 31.1.1995 and reported in AIR 1996 SC 238was reapproved.It was held that Section 4 or for that matter the Act as a whole was not a piece of declaratory or curative legislation. It creates substantive rights in favour of benamidars and destroys substantive rights in favour of the real owners. It creates a new offence of entering into such benami transactions. It had therefore, been held that when a statutory provision creates a new liability and a new offence, it would naturally have a prospective operation, and Section 4 will not apply to pending suits which were already filed and entertained prior to the Act coming into force.
Hence in my opinion what you should labor to conceive is that prior to enforcement of this Act,every Indian had right to own and possesses property bought benami which now after enforcement of this Act is barred prospectively.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 20 May 2012
well advice by mr.mishra..
dear kavitha., what you understood by this act? to whom this act does not applicable..?
-tom-
kavita.sharma
(Querist) 20 May 2012
IF U PURCHASE A PROPERTY AND REGISTER IN THE NAME OF UR SON FOR HIS BENIFIT AND BOTH OF U ARE COPARCNER ACT DOEST APPLY . UR SON IS NOT BENAMIDAR.IF U PURCHASE PROERTY IN THE NAME OF UR SIBLINGS LINEALLY DESCENT OR ASCENT WHICH EXPRESSION MEANS SON ALSO.BUT ALL SUCH TRANSACION MUST BE FOR HIS/HER BENIFICIAL BENIFIT TO BE SAFE FROM THE RIGOURS OF BENAMI.
WHEN SOME PROPERTY IS PURCHASED FOR HIS/HER BENIFIT I THINK HE MUST USE IT FOR HIS BENIFIT AND NOT SELL IT.I M PUTTING A RESTRICTION UPON SUCH ABSOLUTE POWER OF RESTRANING BECOUSE SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GIFT,SALE,WILL OR ANY OTHER THING. AND THIS IS THE MEANINGS I TAKE WHEN IT SAYS...........when a statutory provision creates a new liability and a new offence, it would naturally have a prospective operation, and Section 4 will not apply to pending suits which were already filed and entertained prior to the Act coming into force....
WHAT DO U THINK......
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 20 May 2012
Nothing left to be added.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
