Subsequently, the father of the Respondent No.1 also left for England and died there in 1970.
It is his further case that having raised companystructions in the said properties after obtaining sanction from the Municipality and having recorded his name in the House Tax Records as an assessee of the local body, he proceeded to the United Kingdom in 1964 and at the time of leaving, he had handed over possession of the said properties to his father, who was living along with his other son, Mr. Ram Aggarwal.
Having regard to the fact that both the sale deeds were in the name of the Respondent No.1, but the appellants claimed that the properties had been purchased benami in the name of the Respondent No.1 and the appellants were the real owners thereof, the question of ownership was remanded to the First Appellate Court.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellants Second Appeal.
The High Court came to a finding that there companyld be numberescape from the companyclusion that the Respondent No.1 was the owner of the suit properties and that the appellants had been permitted to use the same as licencees when the Respondent No.1 had gone abroad.
In this companytext a plea of benami was raised by the appellants which was negated by the trial Court on the ground that such plea was number available after the enactment of the Benami Transactions Prevention Act, 1988, which had been held to have retrospective effect.
In the said document, the appellants had admitted the ownership of the Respondent No.1 over the disputed properties and had agreed to transfer some properties in Chandigarh to the Respondent No.1 in lieu of the shops in question.
The Second Appeal was once again dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the defence taken in the suit by the defendants was barred in view of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988 which had companye into force.
The appellants filed a fresh Second Appeal against the order of the First Appellate Court which was again dismissed by the High Court upon holding that in view of the specific bar under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988, the appellants companyld number take up the plea of the properties being benami.
The High Court held that since the aforesaid Act and its provisions were retrospective, the appellants were number entitled to take the plea that the properties were benami in character in view of such specific bar.
Upon reconsideration of the evidence, the First Appellate Court re affirmed its earlier decision holding the Respondent No.1 to be the owner of the property.
Considering the case made out by the respective parties and the evidence led by them, the Trial Court upon holding that the Respondent No.1 was the owner of the suit properties, decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent No.1 by a judgment and decree dated 9th August, 1991.
In view of the aforesaid finding, the High Court dismissed the Second appeal, which had been filed by the defendants who are the appellants herein.
The High Court also took numberice of Exhibit PW3/3 which was signed by Mr. Ram Aggarwal and the Respondent No.1.
One Dharam Pal, Respondent No.1 herein, filed a suit for possession by claiming that he had purchased two properties situated at Nakodar by two companyveyances dated 24th April, 1959 and 12th June, 1959.
The appeal preferred by the appellants from the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court by its judgment dated 5th September, 1997, companyfirming the reasoning of the trial Court, which gave rise to a second appeal filed before the High Court.
It was also asserted by the appellants that a large sum of money had been spent by them on the new companystructions and that they had been depositing local taxes in respect thereof, though the bills were issued in the name of the Respondent No.l whose name was recorded in the local records as the owner thereof.
On being asked to hand over possession of the suit properties by the Respondent No.1, Mr. Ram Aggarwal, refused to do so, which resulted in the filing of the civil suit, after revocation of the licence.
The claim of the appellants is that they had subsequently demolished the old structure and had raised the new structure, of which they were in possession and were, in fact, the real and ostensible owners.
In the companyrse of his deposition in the Trial Court, Mr. Ram Aggarwal admitted his signatures on Exhibit PW3/3 and it was further observed that the said agreement was presumably as a companysequence of the numberice issued by the Respondent No.1 on 30th August, 1986 Exhibit PW3 .
Similarly, a second shop was also purchased by them on 12th June, 1959, in the name of the Respondent No.1 on the same ground.
The claim of the Respondent No.1 was denied by the defendant appellant, Mr. Ram Aggarwal, who claimed that an old shop had been purchased by a sale deed dated 24th April, 1959 in the name of the Respondent No.1 on account of their love and affection for him.
It was also admitted by the appellants that the electric companynection and water companynection were in the name of the Respondent No.1.
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. Leave granted.
This appeal has been listed after numberice had been served on the Respondent No.1 and learned companynsel has entered appearance and has filed companynter affidavit on his behalf.
The brother of the Respondent No.1/plaintiff, Mr. Ram Aggarwal, thereafter started a business in the said premises under the name and style of Vijay Agencies and remained in possession thereof as licencees of the Respondent No.1.
