white black legal international law journal ISSN: 2581-8503

Peer-Reviewed Journal | Indexed at Manupatra, HeinOnline, Google Scholar & ROAD








This statute exempts the transfer of property via gifts, succession, inheritance, or testamentary. The true owner's, ostensible owner, and third party's rights regarding the transfer are governed by the Act's crystal-clear legislative requirements. The Act was intended to simplify and make easier for the general public the process of transferring land and property. The transfer of property must adhere to a number of broad rules established by this Act.


In order to protect the rights of uninvolved third parties from real property owners, the principle of an ostensible owner carrying out the transfer of property was formed. This concept is codified in Section 41 of the Act. This rule safeguards the rights of uninvolved third parties. It also explores how this idea has been applied in various case laws both before and after India gained its independence, as well as the various elements and conditions that must be satisfied in order for the plaintiff to profit from it.


The case of Pushpalata v. Vijay Kumar is important in terms of benami transactions in India. The Supreme Court of India considered the consequences of the benami transaction-related legal laws in this case.



The property in question was bought by Vijay Kumar in the name of his wife, Pushpalata, purportedly through a benami transaction.


The property in question was once owned by Pushpalata. In 1972, she sold the house to a man named Rajendra Prasad. Prasad never ever took possession of the land, and the selling paperwork was never recorded. Pushpalata kept using the property while still making the necessary payments for taxes and other fees.


From Prasad's legitimate heirs, Vijay Kumar bought the land in 2002. Pushpalata, who identified herself as the property's ostensible owner and insisted that she had lived there continuously since 1972, refused to leave the premises, nonetheless.


The lower courts dismissed a claim for possession of the property made by Vijay Kumar. Because Pushpalata had been in continuous possession of the land for more than 30 years and had paid all taxes and dues pertaining to the property, the courts determined that she was the ostensible owner of the property.


While Pushpalata had sold the land to Prasad in 1972, Vijay Kumar argued in his appeal to the higher courts that she could not be regarded as the ostensible owner. But, because Pushpalata had been in continuous possession of the land for more than 30 years, the higher courts affirmed the lower court's ruling and determined that she was the property's ostensible owner.



Whether the property was involved in a legitimate benami transaction?



Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines an ostensible owner who is the owner of an immovable property and who takes action based on the stated or inferred consent of another party who has an interest in the property.[1]



A "benami transaction" is a transaction in which a property is bought in the name of someone else (i.e., the benamidar), who is not the actual owner of the property. The transaction is typically carried out to hide the true owner's identity or to evade taxes.[2]

Both the Trial court and the High court in this case had ruled that the property in question had been acquired through a benami transaction and that Vijay Kumar was its true owner.


In a benami transaction case, the person making the allegation has the burden of proof, the court further remarked. The Supreme Court decided that the lower courts had not satisfied their obligation to provide evidence in this matter.[3] The Supreme Court stressed that in benami transactions, it is not sufficient to prove that the property is held in someone else's name. In order to prove that a transaction constituted a benami, the individual making the allegation must additionally demonstrate that it was done with the aim to defraud or avoid paying taxes.[4] The Court also mentioned that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 forbade benami transactions and that anyone found guilty of such a transaction could face jail time and fines.


In general, the Pushpalata v. Vijay Kumar case underscores the significance of clear evidence and intention in determining whether a transaction is benami or not and offers significant guidance on how benami transactions should be evaluated in India.



Property ownership was at issue in the court case of Pushpalata v. Vijay Kumar. The crucial question in the case was whether Pushpalata still had legal possession of the property, despite Vijay Kumar having bought it from the original owner.


Ostensible ownership refers to a circumstance in which a person gives the appearance of being the owner of a piece of property, while the ownership actually belongs to another person. This can occur when the real owner of a property consents to another person representing themselves as the owner of the property, either via their acts or through a legal arrangement.


Pushpalata contended that Vijay Kumar was simply a nominal owner in this situation and that she was the real owner of the land. She claims that even though she gave Vijay Kumar permission to buy the home in her name, he was never meant to be the actual owner. She asserts that rather, in order to facilitate a transaction with a third party, she simply permitted Vijay Kumar to pose as the property's owner.


On the other hand, Vijay Kumar contended that he was the legitimate owner of the land because he bought it from Pushpalata, the first owner, in good faith. He asserted that he had no knowledge of any arrangement between Pushpalata and the third party and had no cause to suspect that Pushpalata was simply the nominal owner of the land.


To ascertain who the actual owner of the property was, the court had to take into account the evidence put up by both sides. They must decide whether Vijay Kumar was a bona fide buyer who bought the property in good faith or whether Pushpalata and Vijay Kumar had a formal agreement that rendered Vijay Kumar simply an apparent owner.


The court stated that the party claiming to be the true owner of the property is required to provide evidence that a transaction is not benami. It was determined that the transaction in this case was benami since the appellant had failed to meet this obligation.


The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act of 1988 was created with the intention of preventing the transfer of property under false names and ensuring that the true owners of the property were known, the court further noted. The Act was a step towards reducing such transactions, the court ruled, and benami transactions were against public interests.



Important legal precedents regarding benami transactions were established in the case of Pushpalata v. Vijay Kumar, which is significant in Indian law. The case clarified the nature and scope of benami transactions and established that while they are not illegal in and of themselves, such transactions are deemed unlawful if they are made with the intent to defraud, deceive, or cheat someone, or if they are made to evade legal obligations like taxes. In addition, the case demonstrated how crucial it is to take into account each party's intention when assessing whether a benami transaction is permissible.



[1] Transfer of Property Act, 1882, § 41, No. 4, Acts of Parliament, 1882 (India).

[2] Jaydayal Poddar vs. Bibi Hazra, (1974) 1 SCC 3

[3] Collector Singh vs L.M.L Ltd., (2015) 2 SCC 410

[4] Nizam vs State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC 550


Let's Start With Publication