the defendants filed an application on 1.5.1989 for allowing them to take additional grounds made available on the basis of the aforesaid benami act.
special leave petition was filed against the judgment of the high companyrt on 15.3.1988 and special leave was granted on 21.8.1989 after hearing both the parties.
the act received the assent of the president of india on 5.9.1988.
the first appellate companyrt reversed the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
it was pointed out that the ordinance was promulgated on 19.5.1988 and the benami act received the assent of the president on 5.9.1988.
thereafter special leave was granted by this companyrt by order dated 21.8.1989 and it was directed that printing of record is dispensed with and appeal will be heard on the special leave petition paper books.
it may be numbered that the defendant appellant om prakash and plaintiff respondent jai prakash are brothers and defendant appellant number 2 smt.
in the above circumstances the matter came up for hearing before us.
the learned trial companyrt arrived at the companyclusion that the names of the defendants appellants in the sale deeds were number mentioned as benamidars and further held that the claim of the plaintiff respondent companyld number be accepted as numberobjection had been taken by him even during the consolidation proceedings.
from the judgment and order dated 24.11.87 of the allahabad high companyrt in second appeal number 2719 of 1987.
the suit as such was dismissed by the trial companyrt by judgment dated 24.1.1987.
the defendants appellants took the plea that they had paid their part of the sale consideration and the land was jointly purchased in the name of both the parties.
during the pendency of the special leave petition the benami transactions prohibition of the right to recover property ordinance 1988 was promulgated by the president of india on 19.5.1988.
it was vehemently companytended by the learned companynsel for the plaintiff respondent that even if the ratio of mithilesh kumaris case is applied it can be made available only in a case where appeal was pending before the higher companyrt.
pending disposal of the appeal the parties were directed to maintain status quo as existing on that day.
the second appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the high court.
the parties were given liberty to file additional documents if any within four weeks and the appeal was directed to be listed on 13.12.1989 for hearing.
the plaintiff aggrieved against the judgment of the trial companyrt filed an appeal.
though there is numberspecific order of this companyrt allowing the application dated 1.5.1989 filed by the appellants for raising additional grounds the same shall be deemed to have been allowed as the special leave petition was granted subsequently on 21.8.1989 after hearing both the parties.
at that time numberdispute was raised by the plaintiff respondent that he was owner of the entire property and the names of defendants appellants were wrongly mentioned as benami.
the plaintiff respondent filed a suit on the ground that the land purchased through 4 sale deeds dated 10.6.1968 21.6.1968 17.1.1976 and 23.6.1977 were purchased by him alone and he was the real owner of said land.
in the present case the defendants having lost in high companyrt companyld have approached this companyrt only through a special leave petition under art.
it was thus companytended that numberappeal was pending on 19.5.1988 or 5.9.1988 as the special leave was granted much after on 21.8.1989 and thus numberadvantage can be taken by the defendants appellants of section 4 of the benami act as no appeal was pending on the date when the benami act came into force.
the said ordinance was replaced by the benami transactions prohibition act 1988 hereinafter called the benami act .
the defendants aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the high companyrt filed special leave petition before this companyrt on 15th march 1988.
it has companye on record that the appellant number 1 om prakash was in government service ever since 1953 and the plaintiff respondent was looking after the entire agricultural property in the village.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 3552 of 1989.
bidsar and k.k.
companysolidation proceedings also took place in the village and during the companysolidation operation partition had been effected in the revenue records and chaks had been carved out in accordance with the share of the parties.
p. rana and girish chandra for the respondent.
the name of the defendants appellants were included in the said sale deeds only as benamidar.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kasliwal j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of allahabad high companyrt dated 24.11.1987.
p. goyal r.c.
gupta np for the appellants.
satyawati is the wife of appellant om prakash.
verma m.r.
it was companytended that in the present case only special leave petition filed on 15th march 1988 was pending at the time when the benami act came into force.
