1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6904 OF 2010 Amol Vijay Gaikwad ...Petitioner. v. Mr. Shivaji P. Bandgar and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Surel S. Shah, adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 14th September, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is original defendant no.14, who had purchased certain suit property from the original defendant no.1 Kamlabai Pralhad Bandgar. Suit was filed by the respondent no.1 Shivaji Pralhad Bandgar for the partition and separate possession of the property. By an application dated 24.2.2009, he sought to amend the plaint to the effect that his deceased father Pralhad, who was in the Government service as police sub-inspector, had purchased the plot no.49, sub-plot no.8 with his own money but in the name of his wife, i.e., the defendant no.1 because he was under the impression that the he being in Government service could not purchase the property in his own name. Amendment application was opposed by the defendant on the ground that the 2 plaintiff was trying to take a plea that the property was purchased benami in the name of the defendant no.1 by his father. However, the trial Court allowed the application for amendment. That order is challenged in the present petition. 2 Section 3(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, (In short ‘The Act’) provides that no person shall enter into benami transaction. Sub-section (2) declares that sub-section (1) shall not be applicable to the purchase of the property by any person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter and it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the suit property is purchased for the benefit of wife or unmarried daughter. Thus, purchase of the property by a person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter is not prohibited under the Act . In the present case, property was purchased in 1956 while the Act came into force in 1988. In view of the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act, objection taken by the present petitioner to the amendment can not be sustained. 3 Therefore, petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 3