Furthermore, it is essential to observe that the present appellant's claim also does not fall within the exception (iii) to Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 which reads to the effect as under:-
"2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(8) "benami property" means any property which is the subject matter of a benami transaction and also includes the proceeds from such property;
(9) "benami transaction" means,--
(A) a transaction or an arrangement--
(a) where a property is transferred to, or is held by, a person, and the consideration for such property has been provided, or paid by, another person; and
(b) the property is held for the immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect, of the person who has provided the consideration,
except when the property is held by--
(i) .
(ii) .
(iii) any person being an individual in the name of his spouse or in the name of any child of such individual and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid out of the known sources of the individual;
(iv) .",
as observed by this Court in Deepak Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. Shakuntala Devi (Supra), the benefit of the said provision also can only be considered to be in relation between the individual who has paid for the purchase of any property as consideration in the name of his spouse or in the name of the child of any such individual and can certainly not relate back to any other property or joint property or an HUF property or any trust property in relation to which there is only an averment made on behalf of the appellant in the written statement that the property in question was purchased with the funds of her deceased spouse or her father in law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RSA No. 23/2019 and CM No. 4782/2019
Decided On: 21.07.2020
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Anu Malhotra, J.
No comments:
Post a Comment