Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988

5 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

PAWAN KUMAR GUPTAversusROCHIRAM NAGDEO

1999 INSC 19520 April 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, P.K. Gupta, purchased a shop‑godown from Narain Prasad and sued the tenant, R. Nagdeo, for eviction under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act for default in rent. The tenant contended that the sale deed was a benami transaction, alleging that the appellant was merely a name‑lender for his father, Pyarel

SMT. SHAIFALI GUPTAversusSMT. VIDYA DEVI GUPTA & ORS.

2025 INSC 73919 May 2025

The mother and younger son filed a suit for partition, possession, declaration, injunction and accounting of properties claimed to be Joint Hindu Family assets against the elder son, his wife and other family members. The elder son’s wife (defendant No.2) and subsequent purchasers (defendants No.5 and 6) sought to have

MANGATHAI AMMAL (DIED) THROUGH LRS ANDversusRAJESWARI & OTHERS

2019 INSC 6649 May 2019Case Partly allowed

The appeal arose from a partition suit where the plaintiffs claimed a three‑quarter share in several properties, alleging that the properties were purchased by the deceased husband, Narayanasamy Mudaliar, in his wife’s name using money from the sale of ancestral lands, thus constituting benami transactions. The trial c

PUSHPALATAversusVIJAY KUMAR (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2022 INSC 9105 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The father, Laxmi Prasad, the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family, bought several parcels of land using his own funds but registered them in the names of his minor sons, Vijay Kumar and Rajendra Kumar. The sons later sold one of the parcels, prompting the father’s widow and daughters to sue for declaration of title and s

PAWAN KUMARversusBABULAL SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

2019 INSC 4542 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Pawan Kumar filed a suit seeking declaration of title over a shop, alleging he paid the purchase price while the deed was placed in his father's name. The second defendant moved an Order VII Rule 11 application to dismiss the suit on the ground that it was barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search