Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/47757160/Mahadev-1-Report57
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:02:48+00:00

Document:
LAW COMMISSION NEW DELHI-,l10001 Dated: the August 7. 1973.
the Law Commission on 'Benami Transactions'- .
The circumstances in which. the subject was taken up by the Law Commission are stated in the opening paragraph of the Report.
When the subject was taken up, G\I Questionnaire giving a brief resume of the present position. setting out the problem and putting forth the possible alternatives for reform of the Jaw was prepared. After approval by the Commission, it was circulated to State Governments, High Courts, Bar Associations, Chambers of Commerce and other interested persons and bodies. The views expressed on the Questionnaire were studied, and a draft Report prepared on the subject. This was considered by the Commission, and the Report was revised in the light of the discussions.
Minister of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, Government of India.
Accordingly, the Law Commission has been asked to examine the matter and let Government have the benefit of -its advise on the question of prohibiting the practice 'of holding property benami .
"45. Clause 43 (New Clause 34)-As explained in paragraph 13, the Committee have decided to drop the new procedure for 'recognition' of partnership firms and to continue the existing procedure for registration of such firms with a few modifications.
1. Letter No. 2462/72/ Adv. P, dated 20th December, ] 972, of the Minister of Law to the Chairman, Law Commission.
2. Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 1969-Report of the Select Committee (3rd August, 1970), page XVH.
4. Shri T. N. Singh.
making. Merely saying that he will suffer in a certain way and that it will be discouraging the benami transactions is not enough, AU benami ttansattio.rt&sbould be debarred under the law. And I want to know why it has not been done. Why do you want to encoutaf,e tengmi transactions indirectly by a supposed penalty or harm or by saying that the party may suffer because he has done that? Why not debar it completely?"
1.5 Meaning 01 'benami transaction~.-Purchase or holding of properties in the name of another is known. in India. as a benaml transaction. This custom has been recognised by Indian Courts for a long time. Literally. the word "benami" means 'without name'. The essential legal characteristic of these transactions is that there is no intention to benefit the person in whose name the transaction is made. The name of that person, popularly known as the 'benamidar', as the Privy Council pointed out 1~2 is simply an alias for that of the person beneficially interested. The benamidar bas the ostensible title to the property standing in his name; but the beneficial ownership of the property does not vest in him but in the real owner.
(a) The Joint Hindu Family system and a desire to make secret provisions is one factor' which might have led to the practice of benami.
"Since its first establishment. the British Government, in the exercise of its legislative functions. have from time to time made attempts to check the inveterate practice obtaining in India of holding property by one person in the name of another. This practice, having its origin in the dishonest motive of defrauding creditors of their just and lawful dues, has had so large and widespread prevalence here that the legislature cannot altogether put an end to it by a drastic enactment declaring the practice absolutely illegal in all cases."
2. Gurnarain v, Sheolal, A.LR. 1918 P.e. 140. 2a. See para 1.7(d), below.
3. West and Buhler, ·'Hindu Law', (Fourth Edition), pages 157, 563.
4. K. K. Bhattacharya, Joint Hindu Family, (Tagore Law Lectures) (1884- 85), pages 469, 470.
"~Su.ch a step W0u19 be .. attended with. immense mischief. But, as theBritishGovernment by its revenue laws .has retained in its .hands the. supreme control over the vast majority of landed property. there have been enactments' to discourage benami purchases at a revenue sale."
(c) Desire to eviuleiaxes may be another motive of persons entering into benami transactions. The. victim here. is not individual. but the State. Nevertheless. it is a species of fraud.
(d) Benami transactions might also have originated in a desire to avoid certain political and social risks. According to Pollock," "Practices of this kind (benami practices) naturally grow up in a state of society where there is an appreciable risk, from one generation to another, cf hostile conquest or confiscations. And. having regard to the political state of India before and after the short-lived prosperity of the Mogul Empire, I do not see the necessity of explaining the frequency of these transactions by some supposed innate love of secrecy in the minds of oriental owners of property. Neither is there anything surprising in the persistence of the habits of-the kind after the reasons for them disappear. Our modern life is full of these survivals in things great and small. Again, it is quite natural for ingenious persons to discover that the means of concealment which formerly were a shelter from the strong hand of princes and adventurers can be turned in peaceful times to the less ambitious but not less lucrative end of baffling creditors,"
1.8 Judicial recognition of benami.-Whatever the factors which led to the practice of benami, there is no doubt that it has a firm footing in the legal system. Judicial recognition of the practice came very early in India. In one of the very early Calcutta cases/ a purchase in the name of the wife's name was held to be "Farzi'" (fictitious). It was held that the property vested in the person to whom the grant was actually made, and not necessarily in the person whose name was made use of.
1. The author cites several enactments to illustrate this proposition.
2. Pollock, Law of Fraud, misrepresentation mistake (J 894), page 83, 84.
4. (a) Balaniyappa Chetty v, Arumugon Chetty, (I864) 2 M.H.C.R. 26. (b) Bipen Bcharee Chaudhry v, Ram Chunder Roy. (1870) 14 W.R. ]2.
15, (common form of Benami).
(c) Tagore v, Tagore, (1872) I.A. Supp, 47, 71 ("Tagore Case"). (d) Ravji v, Maliadev, (1897) I.L.it 22 Bom. 672.
(e' Akbar Ali v. Mahomed Faiz Buksh,(187l) 15 W.R. 12, 14.
benami transactions is the use of an' alias in respect of the holding of property, usually, (but not always) with the object of concealing the real owner. Benami transactions are not confined to purchases, and can extend to other modes of transfer.
1.10 Benami transactions common in India.-It is not disputed that benami transactions are common in India. As the Federal Court a bserve<f1-· .
"Down to the taluqdar's death the natural inference is that the purchase was a benami transaction a dealing common to Hindus and Muhammadans alike, and much in use in India; it is quite unobjectionable and has a curious resemblance to the doctrine of our English law that the trust of the legal estate results to the man who pays the purchase money, and this again follows the analogy of our Common law, that where a feoffment is made without consideration the use results to the feoffer."
"If then the person in whose name the purchase was effected had been a stranger in blood, or only a distant relative, no question could have arisen; he would have been prima facie a trustee. and if he desired to contend that the prima [acie character of the transaction was not its real character, the burthen would have rested on him; but the individual in whose name the present purchase was effected was. the son. and at that time the on1y son, of the person who made the purchase. and whose money it was, and it has been contended that the circumstance changes the presumption, and that what would be the presumption in the case of a stranger does. not exist between father and son; that the presumption is advancement, and that, therefore, the burthen of proof is.
3. Gopeekrist Gosain v, Gungapersaud Gosain (1854) 6 M.LA. 53.
shifted. Now. on this. as far as their Lordships can learn .. there is no anthority in Imian law, no distinct case, or dictum, establis!ling or recognising such a principle. or such a rule. It is clear that in the case of a stranger the presumption is in favour of its being a benamee transaction. that is a trust ~ but it is clear also that in this country, where the person in wfIose name the purchase is- made is one for whom the party making the purchase was under an obligation to provide, the case is different; and it is said that that ought to be deemed the law of India also, not because it is the law of England. but because it is founded on reason and the fitness of things. if I may use the expression, or natural justice. that on such grounds it ought to' be considered the law of India. Now, their Lordships are not satisfied that this view of the rule is accurate, and that it is not one merely proprii juris. Probable as it may be. that a man may wish to provide for his son to a certain extent, and though it may be his duty to do so, yet there are other considerations belonging to the subject ~ among others. a man may object to making his child independent of him in his life time. placing him in such a position as to enable' him to leave his father's house and to die, leaving infant heirs. thus putting the property out of the control of the father. Various reasons may be urged against the abstract propriety of the English rule. It is merely one of positive law, and not required by any rule of natural justice to be incorporated in any system of laws, recognising a. purchase by one man in the name of another, to be for the benefit of tbe real purchaser. Their Lordships. therefore, are not prepared to act against the general rule, even in the absence of peculiar circumstances; but in India there is what would make it pa rticularly objectionable, namely. the impropriety or immorality of making an unequal division of property among childreno This might be more striking where there were more sons than one; but if the objection exists. it does not become less where there is only one son, for the father may nave others, and in such a case t~e same objectionable consequences would follow as where several sons were in being."
1.13 Legality of benami transactions.-In itself, a benami transaction is not illegal. because "transfer of property", by its definition,' does not require that the transfer in favour or one person may not be' in the name of another person.
L Section S, Transfer of Property Act.
into for fraudulent or illegal purposes.".
1.15 Resort to benami to commit frand.-Every benami transaction is not harmless. Past experience shows that benami rransactions have often been resorted to for furthering illegal or questionable objects, including the evasion of taxes. Benami transactions are sometimes also resorted to in order to defeat creditors.
1.17 Legal and factual controve[sies.-Apart from these undesirable consequences of benami transactions, it may be noted that the recognition of this practice as a part of the legal system creates controversies. both legal and factual, in the actual application of the law in courts; and this itself leads to complexity and uncertainty'. It appears to us that such complexity and uncertainty is worth avoiding, if that can be done without causing any serious hardship.
1.18 Scope of rest of the Report.- The rest of this Report will, accordingly. be concerned with an analysis of certain aspects of benami transactions, so as to illustrate the legal and factual controversies referred to above,' and with an examination of the justification for a change in the law, and the direction in which the change could be usefully made .
1. Mr. Silas Kunwar v , Desraj Ranjit Singh, A.I.R. 1915 P.C. 96; 37 All. 557; 42 I.A. 202 (p.e.).
3. See Chapter 4. infra.
4. See para 6.21, infra.
plicable to benami transactions was stated with considerable distinctness in a judgment of this Board delivered by Sir George Farwell.' Referring to a benami dealing. their Lordships say: "It is quite unobjectionable and has a curious resemblance to the doctrine of our English law that the: trust of the legal estate results to the man who pays the purchase money, and this again follows the analogy of our common law that where a feoffment is made without consideration the use results to the beoffer".
2. 3 Pri~iple that transaction is presumed to be for ben(!fit of person providing money.-The principle is that where property is acquired in the name of one person but the purchase price is paid by another, a presumption arises that the transaction was one for the benefit of the person providing the money. Such cases are common in India where 'benami' transactions are recognised.
1. Gurnarayan v. Sheolal Singh, A.I.R. 1918 P.e. 140, 143.
2. Bilas Kunwar v. Besrai Raniit Singh, AJ.R. 1915 P.C. % (Also see para 1.11, supra).
3. See chapter 4, infra.
2.5 Position as between real owner and third parties.~~As to the position between the real owner of the property and third parties, ordinarily the real owner will not have an occasion to make any assertions about title. If. however. such a situation does arise. then law will have regard to the reality, and (disregarding the ostensible title of the benamidar), the law will allow the real owner to assert his ownership, as a general rule.
1. Gopee Krist Gosain v, Ganga Prasad Gosain, (1854-57) 6 M.I.A. 53 (P.C.) [See para 1.12 supra].
2. Bilas Kunwar v, Desraj Singh, (19]5) T.L.R. 37 AlL 557; 42 I.A. 202; 19 C.W.N. 1207 (P.C.).
4. Raja oi Deo v. Abdullah, (1918) LL.R. 45 Cal. 909; 45 LA. 97; 22 C.W.N. 891 (P.C.).
6. Promode Kumar v. Madan Mohan. A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 228. 211 C.W.N. 305.
7. Murlidhar v, Paramanand, AI.R. 1932 Born. 190 (Shingne J.).
8. Radhakrishnan v, Union oj India, A.I.R. 1959 Born. 102. 104, 105 (Shelat J .).
9. Gur Prasad v . Hansra], A.I.R. 1946, Oudh 144, 145 (reviews cases).
10. Radhakrishnan v, Union of India. AI.R. 1959 Born. 102.
11. Chapter 4, infra. Also see 54th Report of the Law Commission.
13. Para 4.3, infra, relating to section 281A, Income-Tax Act.
2.7 Expression "Benami" Dot frequen.tly Wiled in statute law.-As a matter of legal theory, benami transactions, though familiar to every Indian lawyer, do not figure in many statutory provisions; and, with a few exceptions to be presently noted,' the word 'benami' remains rather a stray visitor to the world of legislation, though a familiar figure in the judicial sphere.
2.10. In an Oudh case", the Additional Judicial Commissioners discussed the case law on the subject. and the proposition was laid down that section 82. Trusts Act. appears to throw the burden of proof of benami on the person who alleges that the transaction is benami, while previously (i.e, before the Act) where one person paid the consideration. he could throw the burden of disproof on the other side.
2.1l. Views that 1Jedi_ 81 alten bunIen of proof.-According to another view' "section 82, Trusts Act, though it may not have really altered the burden of proof. has made it much clearer than it was before that the burden of proof of establishing all the facts necessary to lead to the inference that a transfer was benami lies upon the person asserting it to be so."
1. Para 4.3. intra. relating to section 281A, Income Tax Act.
2. Section 82, Trusts Act.
3. C/. Mulla, Transfer of Property (1966), Commentary on section 53, page 272.
- 5. Para. 2.13 and 2.15, infra.
6. Raj Kunwar v. Rani Maharai Kunwar, A.I.R 1925 Oudh 243.
7. Sardar Jahan v. Smt, AtzaZ Begam, A.I.R. 1941 Oudh 288, 292 (Yorks & Aggarwal 33).
"Now, it is true that under sections 80 and 82 of the Trusts Act 2' benarnidar holds the property for and on behalf of the real owner in consequence of which there would be a resulting trusts in respect of the property in favour of "the real owner". But then, it would be fallacious to urge from those sections that the legal ownership in such property vests in the benamidar as it does in the case of trustee. What those sections reaily mean is that a benamidar is in a fiduciary relationship with the real owner and therefore has all the obligations of a person in such fiduciary position towards the real owner. A benamidar is no more than an ostensible owner ot the property he holds benami, though his acts in certain circumstances would be binding upon the real owner. That is because the real owner holds him out to third parties as an owner of the property. It is, however, impossible to say as in the case of a trustee that any right in the property either vests in him or that under section 13 and the sections following thereafter of the Trusts Act any obligations therein set out fall on him. In Gur Narayan v. Sheold Singh, I.L.R. 46 Cal. 566: (A.I.R. 1918 P.e. 140(C)), their Lordships of the Privy Council stated that so long as a benami transaction did not contravene the provisions of the law the Courts were bound to give effect to it but they made it clear also that the benarnidar has no beneficial interest in the property that stands in his name; he represents in fact the real owner and so far as their relative legal position is concerned. he is a mere trustee for him."
1. Radhakrishnan v. Union oj India. A.I.R. 1959 Born. 102, 104. 105 (Shelat J.).
beginning with Section 80s which provides that an obligation in the nature of a trust is created in certain specified cases, and section 82 enacts that the transferee must hold that property for the benefit of the person paying or providing the consideration. Section 95 re-affams the provision implied in section 80. In the case of express trusts. the Act describes the beneficiary's rights against the trustee as "beneficial interest or interest of the beneficiary," Under section 55, the beneficiary has. subject to the provisions of the instrument of trust, a right to the rent and profits of trust property and under section 56 the beneficiary, if there is only one and he is competent to contract, may require the trustee to hand over possession of the trust property to himself. This is almost a matter of course where. as in: benami transactions, the holder of the legal title is only a bare trustee. Under section 58, the beneficiary, if competent to contract, may transfer his interest, and under section 69. every person to whom a beneficiary transfers his interest has the rights of the beneficiary in respect of such interest at the date of the transfer."
a benamidar, the person for whom the mortgage was .obtamed could sue on the mortgage, and the same rule applies to other transactions except those forbidden by law. The benamidar bas some of 1he liabilities of a trustee but not all his rights. When the benamidar is in possession of the property standing in his name, he is in a sense the trustee for the real owner."
2. GlN Prasad v, Hansrai, A.I.R. 1946 Oudh 144, 145 (Ghulam Hasan C.J.).
the beneficiaries. As a legal owner, a benamidar has the right to sue for possession against a trespasser. In 58 LA. 2791, the Privy Council remarked that Indian law does not recognise legal and equitable estates. According to that law there can be but one owner, and where the property is vested in a trustee, the owner must be the trustee."
2.16. These decisions' show that the legal position is somewhat obscure as to the vesting of the title. They show the misconception that is likely to arise. so long as benami is recognised .
1. Chhatra Kumar; Devi v. Mohan Bikram Shah. (1931) A.tR. 1931, P.C. 196; 58 I.A 279.
3.1. In,troductory.-In this Chapter, we propose to make a brief comparison of the Indian law in regard to benami with the English law on corresponding matters.
3.4. Englisb rule based on presomption.-Primarily, the English rules on the subject are based on the intention of the parties.
Upon similar grounds i.e. on the ground of intention. where a man buys land in the flume of another, and pays the consideration money," there is a resulting trust in his favour.
1. Dyer Y. Dyer, (1788) 2 Cox 92.
2. Parker and Mellows, Modern Law of Trusts, (1966), page 101.
3. Dyer Y. Dyer, (1788) 2 Cox Eq. 92 (real property).
4. Re Scotisb Equitable Life Assurance SOciety, (1902) Ch. 282 (in respect of personal property).
5. Dyer v. Dyer, (1788) 2 Cox Eq. 92, 93.
6. Rider v. Kidder, 10 Yes. 360.
As has been stated.' "The clear result of all the cases. is" that "the trust of a legal estate. whether freehold, copyhold. or leasehold; whether, taken in the names of the purchaser and others jointly, or in the name of others. without the purchaser; whether in one name or several; whether jointly or successively (successive), results to the man who advances the purchase-money. This is a general proposition. supported by all the cases. and there is nothing to contradict it. And it goes on 81 strict analogy to the rule of the common law, that, where a feoffment is made without consideration, the use results to the feoffor".
3.6. I'resumption rebwtable-Presuntption 01 advancemenlb.-The presumption which arises on a purchase in the name of another is rebuttable by parol or other evidence that the purchaser intended to benefit the other. Further, in certain circumstances there is a presumption the other way, namely, that there is no resulting trust. This applies where the person in whom the property is vested is the lawful wife or child of the purchaser, or was a person to whom he stood in loco parentis.
1. Dyer v. Dyer, (1788) 2 Cox 92, 93 (Eyre C.D.).
2. Story, Equity Jurisprudence. (1919), page 507, para. 1201.
3. (a) Ebrand v. Dancer, 2 Ch. C. 26; s.c, 1 Eq, Abr. 382, pl. 11; 2 Mad. PI'. Ch. 101.
(b) Lloyd v. Read, IP. Will. 607. (c) Rider v, Kidder, 10 Yes. 366.
4. Story, Equity Jurisprudence, (1919), page 508, paragraph 1203.
3.~. Presumption 01 advancement also rebuttable.-However, just as the presumption of a resulting trust maybe rebutted. so also may the presumption of advancement be rebutted; and it may be done in the same way by evidence of actual intention.
It will be found that there were two relevant intentions in the above case." The first was the intention of the husband that the house and land should, so far as the beneficial interest was concerned, be and remain his. The second intention was that he put the land and house into his wife's name with a view to protecting it from his creditors in case he should get into financial difficulties.
3.10. In England. the principle applies also where the purpose of the transfer is to defeat revenue laws.-where English or foreign.' Equity will not assist a person who seeks to contravene revenue laws-whether English or foreign.
3.11. Purchase in name of stranger-English law.-So far as the purchase in the name of a stranger is concerned. the position is not different in England and in India. Under the Trusts Act,' there is a resulting trust in this case.
1. Gascoigne v, Gascoigne, (I918) 1 K. B. 223 (Intention to defeat creditors).
2. Gascoigne v. Gdscoigne, (1918) 1 K.B. 223.
3. Re Emery's Investment Trusts, (1959) Ch. 410; (1959) 1 All E.R. 577 (Evasion of tax of friendly foreign country).
between the true purchaser and the nominal purchaser. it may be presumed that a gift to the nominal purchaser was intended. This presumption of. advancement is also rebuttable by evidence to the contrary. whenever the consideration for the purchase of property is advanced by another person.
3.13. Indian law cIfIerent.-Where the purchase is in the name of a relation. the Indian law is the reverse of the English law. The provision in the Trust Act' as to resulting trusts continues to operate, and is not displaced" by a presumption of advancement as in England,"
Of course. evidence of intention could still be given to turn the scales," and it appears that very little evidence might suffice to turn the scale. But the initial presumption is as stated above.
3. Para 3.6 to 3.12, supra.
4 .• Gopeekrit v. Gunga Prasad, (1854) 6 Moore's Indian Appeals 53.
5. See also para 1.12, supra.
6. Mohammad Sidiq v, Fakhar Iahan, (1931) 59 I.A. I, 15.16, 36 Calcutta Weekly Notes 137. 146 (P.C.).
4. I. Statutory moclifi.ations of general principle lecogDlsmg benarui.-So far, in India. two important statutory modifications of the general principle that the real owner is recognised by the law in place of the 'benamidar' have been made. The first is in the Code of Civil Procedure; the second is in the recent amendment of taxation laws. Certain other provisions are also of interest.
4.2. Section 66 Civil Procedure Cede.-c-As regards the first, the relevant section' in the Civil Procedure Code (so far as is material) provides that no suit shall be maintained against any person claiming title under a purchase certified by the Court, (in such a manner as may be prescribed) on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of the plantiff or on behalf of someone through whom the plantiff claims.
Similar provisions exist for revenue, sales and have a long history.
Under Regulation 11 of 1822, the Government was empowered, by section 19 and 20. to cancel and annul benami purchases made at a sale for arrears of revenue. The next enactment upon the subject is contained in Act 12 of 1841, section 22 whereof provides that 'any suit brought to oust a certified purchaser as aforesaid on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of another person not the certified purchaser, though by agreement the name of the certified purchaser was used, shall be dismissed with costs'.
2. 54th Report of the Law Commission (Code of Civil Procedure) (1973), paragraph I-E. 53.
3. Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972.
made the basis of a suit unless compliance with the prescribed requirements is made. These requirements, broadly speaking, are intended to ensure that the taxing authorities concerned with income tax and wealth tax acquire knowledge of the transaction alleged to be benami.
"It has been argued that the proposal would make it more difficult to defeat malafide transfers of property undertaken to prevent attachment of property in view of outstanding demands. I should be interested to know the number of cases in which the Revenue succeeded in breaking the benarni through court action. My feeling is that the Revenue would gain far more from screening all benami transactions at the very outset than it would lose from any added difficulty in breaking the benami in the case of such fraudulent transactions.
4.5. A similar recommendation was made by the Administrative Reforms Commission," also. Accordingly. the Government sponsored legislation through the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill. 1971 to discourage benami holding of property. Under the provision inserted as section 2SlA of the Income-tax Act. 1961. no suit shall be instituted in any court to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami unless the claimant has either disclosed the property in question or the income therefrom in connection with his wealth tax or income-tax assessments or given notice to the Income-tax Officer about the particulars of such. property in the prescribed form.
1. Nicholas Kaldor, Indian Tax Reform (1956), pages 58-59, para. 104- 105.
4.6. Provisions in the Income-tax Act.-The special case of the husband or father transferring assets to the wife or minor child <other than a married daughter) is dealt with by a more direct provision' in the Income-tax Act,-a provision which has been on the Statute Book for a long time.
4.7. Section 41, Transfer of Property Ad.-We may also refer to provision relevant to Benami transfers in the Transfer of Property Aot.E The Jaw of estoppel is enacted in section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the leading case on that section falls equally under this provision of the Transfer of Property Act. In that case." the owner transferred property to his wife as benamidar, After his death, she mortgaged the property, her son assisting in the transaction and receiving the mortgage money. The son was held to be estopped from disputing the mortgage. If the provision in the Transfer of Property Act' had been applied, the case would have been similarly decided on the ground that by the consent of the son, the mother was the: ostensible owner.
4.8. Fraudulent transfers of property are dealt with by another provision in the Transfer of Property Act/-namely, section 53.
4.9. With reference to section 53, Transfer of Property Act (fraudulent transfers). it may be noted that before that Act, there was in force.' is Presidency towns," an English statute" covering all types of property and all types of transfers." This English statute. was in harmony with the common law. The Transfer of Property Act, repeeled this English Statute." The present section 53 (if the Act) does not cover benami or sham transfers. But such transfers can be declared void independently of the section.
4. Sara! Chunder v. Gopai Chunder, (1863) I.L.R. 20 Cal. 296, 19 I.A.
5. Section 41, Transfer of Property Act.
6. Section 53, Transfer of Property Act.
8. See LL.R. 25 Born. 202, 208.
9. ct. Twynes' case, (1601) 3 Co Rep. 80 and Mulla's commentary on section 53, Transfer of Property Act.
11. See Mulla's commentary on section 53, Transfers of Property Act.
4.10. Principle weD establisbed.- The principle underlying section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act is in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience, and has been held applicable even in areas where the Transfer of Property Act is not in force, or in cases>! not covered by the language of the section.
4.11. Section 84, Trusts Act-Transfer for unlawful Itlll'pOSe.Where any transfer of property is intended to effect an unlawful purpose, and the unla-wful purpose is not carried out, the transfer can <subject to certain qualifications) be disregarded. This principle. which forms the basis of a specific provision' (as to illegality) in the Trusts Act, is also relevant to the subject of benami transactions entered into for an illegal object. (Under a provision of the Transfer of Property Act," as transfer for an unlawful object is void).
4.12. Principle.-In a Calcutta case,' Asutosh Mookerjee J. after referring to all the available Indian case law and discussing the English and American cases bearing on the subject, wound up his judgment with the following quotation from a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States."
"The law leaves the parties to such contract as it found them. If either has sustained a loss by the bad faith of a particeps crimins, it is but a just infliction for premeditated and deeply practised fraud which, when detected. deprives him of anticipated profits, or subjects him to unexpected losses."
1. Mt. Akaramunnisa v. Mustajann, ALR. 1929 All. 238.
3. (a). Abdul Bye v, MiT Mahomad, (1883) J.L.R. 10 Cal. 616 (P.e) (b) Chidambaram. v. Srinivas, (1914) LL.R. 37 Mad, 227 (P.C.) (Moveable Property).
4. Ramanathan v. Unnamalai, AI.R. 1942 Mad. 632.
6. Section 6(h)(2), Transfer of Property Act.
7. Raghupati Chatterji v. Nari Shinga Had Das, A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 90.
8. Bartles v. Coleman. 4 Peter 184 (Baldwin J.).
9. Punjab Province v. Daulat Singh, A1.R. 1942 F.e. 38, 40, 41 (1942) F.C.R. 67, 75, 76.
(b) Pranballa» v. Tulsi bala Dassi, AI.R. 1958 Cal. 713, 725, para 114.
intention of the parties was to commit an illegality. The present position' seems to be that where the illegal object is not carried out or where other special reasons exist. the illegality will be disregarded.
defendant to violate his fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff.
"He must not expect that a judicial tribunal will degrade itself by an exertion of its powers. by shifting the loss from the one to the other. or to equalize the benefits or burthens which ma-y have resulted by the violation of every principle of morals and Jaws. As Chancellor Walworth puts it: "Wherever two or more persons are engaged in a fraudulent transaction to injure another, neither law nor equity will interfere to relieve either of these persons, as against the other. from the consequence of their own conduct."
.in the same position as they were in before that transaction was determined upon. It is the defendant who is relying upon the fraud, and is seeking to make a title to the lands through and by means of it. And, despite his anxiety to effect great moral ends. he cannot be permitted to do this. And, therefore, the purpose of the fraud having not only not been effect. ed, but "absolutely defeated. there is nothing to prevent tho plaintiff from repudiating the entire transaction, revoking all authority of his confederates to carry out the fraudulent scheme, and recovering possession of his property."
I. See para 4.14 et sec tnira.
2. Satian sing]; v. Sardara Ali (1960) 1 AlL E.R. 269 (p.C.).
3, Chettiar V. Chettiar, (1962) 1 All E.R. 494 (PC), commented on by Derrett in 11 T.C.L.Q. 864.
4. Mistry Amar Singh v. Kulubra, (1963) 3 AU. E.R. 499 (P.e).
5. Petherpermal Chetty v. Muniandy Seervai, (1908) LL.R. 35 Cal. 550- 558, 559 (P.C.).
(j. Pranbaltav v. Tulsibala Dassi, A.I.R. 1958 Cal. 713, 725, para. 114.
(b) (i) Where public interest or the interest of third parties requires that the relief should be given, or (ii) where denial of the relief may defeat a legal prohibition. or (iii) where the transaction is such that it ought to be allowed to stand on grounds of public policy.
4.] 6. The transfer of pntperty under. illegal 1'ransadions-position in England.-In England,' the prevailing view is that where property has been transferred under an illegal contract, and the parties have, in addition, observed all the formalities necessary for conveying title to the particular property concerned. then title to that property win pass, regardless of the illegality of the transaction."
4.17. Sections 422-424, Penal Code.- The Indian Penal Code has also certain provisions" punishing fraudulent deeds and dispositions of property. These are wide enough to cover fraudulent ben ami, transactions.
(c) Bowmaker Ltd. v. Barnet instruments, (1945) 1 KB. ~5 (C.A.).
2. See Hamson, "Illegal Contracts and Limited Interests", (1949) 10 Camb, LJ. 249, 251 who describes it as "trite Jaw".
3. Sections 421 to 424. Penal Code.
5.1. Introduc6DI1.- ~I n this Chapter. we shall summarise the present position as to benami transactions.
(c) A benami transaction is legal. except in certain specified situations.
5.4. Statutory pro,~isioDS ne.inforcing benami.-There are statutory provisions-(i) re-inforcing benarni, or (ii) modifying it, or (iii) of a special nature. The Indian Trusts Act' contains a general provision. under which, where property is transferred to one person for ~L consideration paid or provided by another person, and it appears that such other person did not intend to provide such consideration for the benefit of the transferee. the transferee must hold the property for the benefit of the person who paid or provided the consideration. The effect of this povision is to reinforce the doctrine of benami.
1. Gour, Hindu Code (1938), page 726, para, 218.
2. Gour, Hindu Code (1938), page 726, para, 219.
3. See para 2.11 to 2.14, supra.
4. Section 82, Trusts Act.
A "resulting trust" arises in such cases; and it is not readily rebutted-as in England-by the presumption of advancement where the transfer is in favour of the wife or child of the person who provided the consideration. Rather, where the transfer is in favour of the wife or child, the courts are more ready to give effect to this provision (of the Trusts Act) than in other cases.
5.5. Statutory provisions modifying benami.-Recognising, however, the fact that benami transactions have often been resorted to for dishonest purposes, the Legislature has enacted provisions modifying the doctrine of benami. These provisions are to be found principally in the Code of Civil Procedure', and in the Income Tax Act,"
5.6. Provisi!ons of a special nature wider than bCIl.ami.-Then there are provisions of a special nature. Their scope and reach are wider than benami transfers, but they could apply also to benami. Under a provisions in the Income-tax Ace, income from property transferred to a spouse or minor child' (other than a married daughter) without consideration is deemed to be the income of the' transferor. The scope of this is wider than benami transfers.
(There are also minor provisions' in special laws as to the disclosure of benami dealings and the like).
5.7. Unlawful kansfers.-A transfer of property for an unlawful object is void, by virtue of a specific provision in the Transfer of Property Act', Recovery by the transferor of property transferred for an unlawful object is. however. permissible only in certain specified cases. Under a provision in the Trusts Act,' where the owner of property transfers it to another for an illegal purpose, and such purpose is not carried into execution. or the transferor is not as guilty as the transferee or the effect of permitting the transferee to retain the property might be to defeat the provisions of any law, the transferee must hold the property for the benefit of the transferor.
5.8. Ftaudulent transfers.-There is. in the Transfer of Property Act,' also a provision empowering the Court to set aside transfers in fraud of creditors and transfers in fraud of subsequent tansferees.
5.8. Civil Procedure Cod e.-There are also provisions in the Civil Procedure Code.
2. Section 2I8A, Income-tax Act, 1961 inserted by Act 45 of 1972.
3. Section 64, Income-tax Act.
4. Also see para. 513, infra.
5. E.g. Sections 247 to 250, Companies Ad, 1956.
7. Section 84, Trusts Act.
8. Section 53, Transfer of Property Act.
5.9. Criminal liability.-So for as criminal liability is concerned, references may be made to the general penal provisions in the Penal Code punishing cheating/ and to the specific provisions in that Co del which punish certain fraudulent dealings with and disposition of property, including fraudulent dealings intended to defeat execution.' These provisions are wide enough to cover fraudulent ben ami transactions, if the other ingredients of the relevant sections are satisfied, The relevant provisions' is the section under which a person who dishonestlyor fraudulently removes, conceals or delivers to any person, without adequate consideration. any property. intending thereby to prevent. the distribution of that property according to law among his creditors or the creditors of any other person. is punished.
(3) with the intention to transfer title or without such intention. and (4) for an honest purpose or to commit fraud.
(a) Transfer in favour of wife Or chiid (whether or not with the object of transfering title to the wife Or child) without adequate consideration.
(b) Transfer in favour of wife Or child for consideration, but for a fraudulent purpose and not in good faith.
Governed by ~ection 64, Income-tax Act [Also see (g) below]. (No crimina] liability unless the case fails within) sections 415 to 424, Penal Code or section 206-207 of that Code).
(c) Transfer in favour of wife Or child for consideration, and with genuine object of transfering title to the wife or child.
1. Sections 415, and 417, Penal Code.
4. Section 421, Penal Code.
5. Actually, section 64, Income-tax Act applies to a spouse or minor child other than a married daughter.
(d) (i) Transfer in favour of a person other than wife or child without consideration, but with the genuine object of transfering title and with no fraudulent purpose.
(ii) Transfer in favour of a person other than wife or child without consideration, and without intent to transfer title, but with no fraudulent purpose.
(iii) Trans fer in favour a f a p-rson other than wife or child without con~ideration, with intent to transfer title, but for a fraudulent purpose and not in good faith.
(iv) Transfer in favour of a person other than wife or child without consideration, without intent to transfer title and for fraudulent purpose.
(e) Transfer in favour of person other than wife or child for consideration, with intent to transfer title, but for a fraudulent purpose and not in good faith.
(f) t'ransfer in favour of person other than wife or child with consideration, but with genuine object of transferring ownership and with no fraudulent intent.
Tramfer in favour of any person benami (i. e. without consideration and with no genuine intent to transfer).
Not covered bJ any provision. (No crtminal liability).
Goven:ed by section 281A, Income-tax Act. [See (g) below]. (No criminal liabilit y).
Governed by section 6(h) (2) and section 53, Transfer of Property Act (Criminal liability if case falls within sections 415 to 424, Penal Code or sections 206-207 of that Code).
Governed by section 281A, Income-tax Act. [See (g) below}. Also section 6(h) (2) and section 59, Transfer of Pr0t:-~rty. Act. (Criminal liabjlity if case falls within sections 415 to 424 Penal Code or sections 206-207 of that Code).
Governed by section 6(h)(g) and section 53, Transfer of property Act. (Crirninal llability if case falls within sections 415 to 424, Penal Code or sections 206-207 of that Cede).
Not covered by any ptovision.
Object of checking tax evasion substantially achieved by barring a suit instituted without informing the taxing authorities. See section 231A, Income-tax Act (inserted by Act 4S of 1972).
(i) A becomes heavily indebted to B who is expected te) attach his property for the satisfaction of his debt. To screen it from B. A transfers some of it to C. The transfer is void."
1. Some of the illustrations are taken from Gour, Hindu Code (1938), page 728. para. 220.
2, Section 53, Transfer of Property Act.
(ii) Where the real owner -is not the husband or father, the provision recently inserted in the Income Tax Act' has the effect of securing that the benami transaction is disclosed to the Income Tax authorities. There does not. therefore. appear to be any serious gap so as to require further radical measures for checking evasion of direct taxes resulting from benami tansactions.
2. As to public policy, see Shea Narayan v. Mata Prasad, I.LR. 27 An,73. 3 _ Section 64, Income Tax Act, 1961.
6.1. Introdoction.-Having dealt with the present position, we propose in this Chapter to consider the amendments needed in the law.
6.2. It would appear that the various statutory provisions that have been enacted so far achieve the objects of checking tax evasion' and checking frauds on private creditors', If these provisions do not succeed, that may be mainly due to reasons other than defects in the law.
(i) Entering into a Benami transactions could be made an offence; (ii) A _ provision may be enacted to the effect tIi~t in a civil suit a right shall not be enforced agaatst the benamidar or against a third person. by or on behalf of the person claiming to be the real owner of the property on' the ground of benami; a similar provision could be made to bar defences on the ground of benami.
(iii) The present presumption t)£ a resulting trust' in favour of the person who provided the consideration may be displaced (as in England) by the presumption of advancement, in cases where the person to whom property is transferred is a near relative' of the person who provided the consideration. (This would bring in the doctrine of advancement, so as to rebut the presumption of resulting trust under section 82 of the Trusts Act).
3. Section 82. Trusts Act.
4. The expression 'near relative' could be suitably defined.
i2} If so, which of the alternatives' mentioned above should be adopted?
(3) If the alternatives mentioned above are not considered adequate or feasible. what other amendments in the law should be made with reference to benami transactions ?
6.6. Views as to fint altemative.-The first alternative has received the support of one High Court.' two Judges of another High Court.' two Judges of one more High Court! some Judges of another High Court' and one State Government."
6.7. Those who favour the first alternative-i.e. the imposition of a prohibition (in the sense of making the entering into benami transactions an offencel=-, regard benami transactions as outmoded. or state that there is no place in modem times for such transactions. or state tha t there can hardly be a legitimate motive for such transactions. This group is, in number. smaller than the group which favours the second alternative or the third alternative.
6.8. The first alternative has, however, been opposed by the majority of the comments on various grounds. It has been stated that benami transactions are entered into for honest motives also. and not necessarily with the intention of evading taxes or defeating the-claims of third parties. Secondly. it is stated that this is a deep rooted habit, and ought not to be prohibited by law, but restrictions may be imposed, wherever necessary" Thirdly, it has been emphasised that the prohibition may be difficult to enforce. as a benami transaction will not ordinarily come to light. Lastly, the view has been expressed that the provisions so far enacted are adequate to check the evasion of taxes or defeating the claims of third parties.
1. These alternatives were the same as those mentioned in para 6.3 supra.
6. S. No. 34 (No other lesser provision will have any effect. it is stated).
provide for situations where one person advances money for a transaction taken in the name oi another wlth Ii genuine intemion to benefit the latter'." After noting that a fresh look is necessary from the point of view of (i) vexatious litigations. (ii) tax-evasions. he suggests, "Such transaction's sfiould be allowed to prevail. and not barred in toto. If the operating motive is tainted by fraud, only 'then should legislation ban them."
6.10. A High Court Judge' has emphasised that benami transactions "have been prevalent in the country for a very long period, and it will be difficult 10 check these by legislation, so long "00 one person will enjoy the confidence of another". In spite of legislation benami transactions may continue, and the benamidar may execute a deed in favour of the real owner subsequently at an opportune time."
6.11. Another High Court Judge," while noting that it is desirable to prohibit such transactions completely. has added it may not be possible to do so through legislation. "and more so where the: real and the ostensible owner would combine against the law." He. therefore, thinks that "the law should go only that far where it would be effective. Only such legislation be made as may regulate the transaction and make it unremunerative for the ostensible owner to agree to act as the shield. The provisions should be such as may bring all benami transactions on the surface."
6.12. Views as to !ieCOnd altemative.-One High Court Judge has stated' that the second alternative will help the ostensible transactions. and not the revenue. Government will not be able to proceed against the property. (He, however, is unable to suggest any other alternative).
6.13. Several person'S and bodies have preferred the second alternative To this category. for example, belong one High Court,' some Judges of one High Court,' one Judge of another Higb Court,' two Judges of another High Court," one Judge of yet another High Court! one High Court Bar Association, 10. and the Legal Remembrancer of a Union Territory.v'-" and two State Government."
11. S. No. 22 (Legal Remembrancer. Chandigarh).
12. The above list is illustrative only.
13. S. "No, 53 and S. No. 21.
of dishonesty or fraud, should be prohibited. .
6.14. The Legal Remembrancer of a Union Territory. who favours. the second alternative, has added' these comments. "The only exceptions thereto may be made in the case of acquisitions made by a karta of the joint Hindu family for himself and the members of the joint Hindu family. by a guardian' for the minor (if the minor is having a source of income) and by the trustee for the beneficiary of the trust."
6.15. Views 8S to third. alternative .. -Another group of replies! favours the third alternative. Some of the replies in this group do not give detailed reasons but it would appear that so far as the question of evasion of taxes is concerned, they would regard the existing position as more than adequate.
Some of them favour' both the second and the third alternatives. 6.16. Views for maintailling present position.-A considerable number of persons' have expressed the view that the existing law is adequate enough. and an amendment or further addition is not required.
6.17. One High Court Judge has stated • that it is enough if the provisions of certain sections of the Indian Trusts Act (sections 1. 82 and 96 are the important amongst them). are borne in mind and made applicable to persons of all communities.
6.18. Altemative eensldered.v-Having discussed the present position and the trends of views expressed on the subject. we shall now proceed to indicate our own conclusion.
6.19. General Observations.-A few general observations may be in order. before the merits of the various possible alternatives are stated .
. _-_. __ .. - --_._.
3. (a) S. No. 13.
(b) S. No. 37 (Bar Association, Dhulia). (c) S. No. 46.
(e) S. No. 54 (District Bar Association. Alipore). (0 S. No. 39.
5. E.g. (i) S. No. 44. (ii) S. No. 43.
(iii) S. No. 41 (Punjab & Haryana Chamber of Commerce). (iv) S. No. 23 (Bar Association, Bankura).
(v) S. No. 13. (vi) S. No. 46.
At the outset, it may be stated that one of the important causes' which accounted for the origin of benumi transactions has now ceased to exist. Thus. the importance of the joint Hindu (Mitakshara) Family has been reduced, after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act. The joint family, in the strict sense of the co-parcenary. hardly existed among the Hindus governed by the Dayabhaga.
Experience shows that benami transactions are a highly fruitful source of bitter litigation. Benami transactions also lead to acrimony, Thus, when a benami transaction is resorted to for defrauding creditors, the true owner may be guided by the consideration that if the property can be saved from the clutches of the creditor. that by itself would be a gain. even if the benamidar, being the son or" any other near relative. may ultimately succeed in effectively keeping the property as his own property. This leads to acrimony among the parties concerned when a controversy arises.
There is, therefore. a case for refusing legal recognition to the benami character of such transactions.
Amendment Act, 1971 (45 of 1972).
5. ct. Chapter 5, supra.
6. Hosman Gani Ahmed Sahib v, Vidhudhar Krishnarao Mung (Appeal No. 533 of 1968 from original decree, decided on 17-1-1969 by Patel and Wag]., 11.).
owne r and often notice of such title is even falsely alleged. Is it now time that this branch of the law was reformed This will reduce much wastefullitigation, and the Courts will be able to do better and more fruitful work."
6.22. Tests for deciding whether a traasaetions is benami.-lt may, in this connection, be pointed out that in determining whether a transaction is benami, several factors, such as, motive, source of consideration, possession of the property and its enjoyment, and custody of title deeds, are the features whose effect, either severally or cumulatively, has to be considered.
(>.23. Various alternatil'es' oonsidered.-In the light of the above o.lwenia~ions, We proceed to consider the various alternatives.
·6.24. First alternative not likely to be effective.-The first alternative re~e r red to above, namely, the imposition of a criminal prohibition against benami transactions, is the most drastic alternative, but it is not likely to be more effective than the others. A prohibition backed by criminal sanctions would not, moreover, be desirable, unless the mens rea is '":;ilso included in the provision to be enacted.
"Where property is transferred to one person for a considera.tion paid or provided by another person, and it: appears that such person did not intend to payor provide such consideration for the benefit of the transferee, the person paying or providing the consideration shall be guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment upto three years, or with fine, Or both.
. Provided that this section shall not apply where the transferee is a co-parcener in a Hindu undivided family in which such other person is also a co-parcener, and it is proved that such other person intended to payor provide such consideration for the- benefit of the co-parceners in the family.
Exception.-Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect section 66 of the Code oj Civil Procedure, 1908 or any provision similar thereto."
l , A separate law will be needed.
if he has caused the transfer to be entered into with the intention of facilitating the evasion of any law, or defeating the claims of his creditors, or the creditors of any other person be guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment upto three years. or with fine, or with both. "
6.25. Second altemative.-The second alternative is less drastic than the first. In form. it could follow the existing statutory provision limiting the judicial recognition of benami transactions, such as, section 66. Code of Civil Procedure. 1908. But its scope would be much wider. The provision' could be to the effect that no suit shall lie to enforce a right in respect of any property held benami, either against (he person in whose name' the property is held or against any other person, by or on behalf of a person who claims to be the real owner of the property On the ground that the person in whose name the property is held is a benamidar of the claimant. (If necessary, a defence can also be barred).
6.26. Third altemative.-The third is the least drastic alternative. a nd would make the matter depend on the intention of the parties.with the qualification that a specific provision requiring the court to draw a rebuttable presumption of advancement in the case of near relatives will be introduced. The practical advantage of SUch a provision will be its elasticity.
2. This is not a draft.
cient ground for drawing an inference that such other person did not intend to payor provide such consideration for the benefit of the transferee/ and in such cases the court slia.l presume that such other person intended to payor provide such consideration for the benefit of the transferee."
6.27. Second alternative refusal to recognise Benami preferred.In our opinion, the simplest alternative would be the second alternauve. The law should refuse to recognise the Benami character of transactions. without making them an offence. The law should, in effect, provide that where property is transferred benami, the benamidar will become the real owner. The result of such a povision will be that the fact that the benamidar did not provide the consideration, or that the consideration was provided by a third person, will not be a ground for recognising a person other than the benamidor as owner. To put the matter in broad terms. the doctrine of benami will, under the proposed amendment. cease to be a part of the Indian law.
We think that this will be the simplest and most effective course, and is, therefore. preferable to others.
The amendment will bring out a change in the legal position in some of the situations' where, at present, the benami character is recognised.
6.21 A. We are also of the view that it is not necessary to enact a prohibition attracting criminal penalties-which is the course suggested in the first alternative. Such a prohibition will have to be accompanied by a requirement of mens rea, thus narrowing down its scope and limiting its practical utility.
1. Exception for co- parceners etc. could be made.
2. Para. 5.11, categories (a) and (b) if there is no intent to transfer title, and categories (d)(ii) and (d)(iv).
the property would ordinarily stand in the name of the trustee, who is not beneficially entitled. The two situations are, thus, different; but the reason for making a combined exception for the two situations (and other similar situations) is the common one, arising from the fact that the section which we propose will bar a suit to enofrce a right on the ground that the person in whose name the property-is held, is not the real owner. In the situations to which we have referred, it is obviously desirable that this new section, if applied literally. would create a result which is the opposite of what is intended by the legal position as understood at present. Hence the need for an exception.
6.29. Exception ti[)r past tJransa(ltiollS.-It is also necessary to make an exception tor past transactions, The provision which we propose will be procedural in form, but will be substantive ill its true character. We do not consider it desirable that it should apply to past transactions. because those transactions would have been entered into after keeping in mind the legal position as understood at present, namely. that the real owner can always enforce his rights against the bcnamidar. This position is now proposed to be reversed, and the reversal should not work in a manner which will defeat the intention of the parties who acted under the old law. Of course, those benami transactions which have been entered into with the object of carrying out fraudulent or illegal motives, and which therefore, fall within specific provisions enacted by the Legislature to prevent the abuse of the practice of benami', are governed by those specific provisions, and the bar against retrospective operation of the new provision will not affect the operation of those specific provisions.
6.30. Repeal of certain Pll[)visions.-As a consequence of our recommendation to abolish the doctrine of benami, section S2 of the Trust Act. section 281A of the Income-tax Act and section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. will become unnecessary and we. therefore, recommend that they should be repealed.
As regards provisions like section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act or section 64 of the Income-tax Act, their scope is much wider than benami transactions. These provisions could be pressed into service even in cases not falling within the doctrine of benami. For example, section 64 of the Income-tax Act applies even where the transfer to the spouse of the assets concerned is genuine, provided the transfer is not for adequate consideration or in connection with an cgreement to live apart. We do not, therefore, think that they require any change in consequence of the new section which we are recommending.
I. See Chapter 4 supra.
the! proposed provision}, should not be understood as standing in the way of setting aside a transfer by t:ie real owner to the ben amidar, if the transfer was made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the transferer and is thus at tracted by secion 53.
6.31 Constitutional aspect of proposed provision.-In the course of our consideration of this question, we had occasion to examine a small constitutional issue, namely, whether the proposed provision prohibiting the real owner from filing a suit to enforce his right against the benamidar would conflict with the provision in Article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution. Under that article, all citizens have the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property. We have come to the conclusion that the proposed section wi11 not be hit by that clause. In this connection, we may point out that Article 19(5) saves a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by sub-clauses (d), (e) and (f) of clause (I). if the restrictions are in the interest of the general public.
6.32. Public interest requires that unnecessary litigation should be avoided; and if the law enacts provisions designed to achieve such object, it does not hinder the public interest. It advances it. The time of the citizens and of the agencies charged with the administration of justice should be devoted to more fruitful tasks than to the decision of questions arising by reason of the mere use of the name of a person who is not intended to be the owner of the property held in his name. If there is no compelling consideration for such use of the name of another person, we do not see any reason why such a practice should not be restricted. For these reasons, the restriction should be regarded lS reasonable within the meaning of article 19(5).
"It l l No suit to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a person' claiming to be the real owner of such property.
1. Section 6 (I )(2), Transfer of Property Act, and Section 48, Trusts Act.
(b) where the person in whose name the property is held is a trustee or other person standing in a fiduciary capacity, and the property is held fur the benefit of another person for whom he is <li trustee or towards whom he stands in such capacity.
(b) section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (c) section 281A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
(I) apply in relation to any property held benami at the commencement of this Act."
This Report has not been signed by Mr. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer.
When the draft of the-Report was fully discussed and approved by the Commission, Mr. Justice Iyer was a. Member of the Law Commission and participated in the discussions. However, before the Report. as finalised and approved, could be typed for the signatures of the Members of the Commission, Mr. Justice lyer left the Commission to join the Supreme Court. He has authorised us to state that he fully agrees with the approach and recommendations of the Report.
We desire to place on record our warm appreciation of the valuable assistance to have received from Mr. Bakshi, Member-Secretary of the Commission. in the preparation of this Report. At all stages of the study of this problem. Mr. Bakshi took an active part in our deliberations.
DATED: NEW DELID. the 7th August. 1973.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.