SRI MARCEL MARTINS versus M. PRINTER & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 27-04-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 480 
SRI MARCEL MARTINS 
V. 
M. PRINTER & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6645 of 2003) 
APRIL 27, 2012 
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - s.4(3}(b) 
- Transaction saved from prohibition u/s. 4 - Municipal 
C Corporation decided to sell residential property originally 
owned by it to its tenant 'S' - However, in the meanwhile S' 
passed away - Husband of deceased 'S' and her daughters-
respondents consented to the transfer of the property in the 
name the of appellant, the only son of 'S' - Property purchased 
D in name of appellant though sale consideration for the 
purchase contributed by appellant as well as S's husband and 
daughters-respondents - Dispute relating to the property - S's 
husband and daughters-respondents filed civil suit praying for 
declaration that they were co-owners in the property to the 
E extent of their contribution and praying for an injunction 
against the defendant-appellant - Trial Court dismissed the 
suit - High Court repelled the plea of appellant that the suit 
was hit by the provisions of the 1988 Act and decreed it - Held: 
Transfer of rights in favour of appellant was not because the 
F other legal heirs of 'S' had abandoned their rights but because 
the Corporation required the transfer to be in favour of an 
individual presumably to avoid procedural complications in 
enforcing rights and duties qua the property at a later stage -
Appellant J1eld ostensible title to the property in a fiduciary 
G capacity vis-a-vis his siblings (i.e. respondents) who had by 
reason of their contribution towards the sale consideration paid 
for acquisition of the property and the contribution made by 
their father (i.e. S's husband) continued to evince interest in 
the property and its ownership - Especially when respondents 
H 
480 
SRI MARCEL MARTINS v. M. PRINTER & ORS. 
481 
continued to enjoy possession over the property, they who 
A 
would in law and on a parity of reasoning be deemed to be 
holding the same for the benefit of appellant and vice versa 
- Consequently, sale transaction in favour of appellant was 
completely saved from the mischief of s.4 of the 1988 Act by 
reason of the same falling under sub-section 3(b) of s.4 - Suit 
B 
in question not, therefore, barred by the 1988 Act as 
contended by the appellant. 
Words and Phrases - Expression "fiduciary capacity" -
Meaning of. 
The Municipal Corporation of the city of Bangalore 
took decision to sell residential property originally owned 
c 
by it to its tenant 'S'. However, in the meanwhile 'S' 
passed away. Inasmuch as the Municipal Corporation 
desired the transfer to be in the name of one individual 
D 
legal representative rather than several individuals, the 
husband of 
deceased 'S' and her daughters-
respondents consented to transfer of the property in the 
name of appellant, the only son of 'S'. The property was 
consequently purchased in the name of the appellant 
E 
though the sale consideration for the purchase was 
contributed by the appellant as well as S's husband and 
daughters-respondents. A dispute relating to the property 
having arisen, S's husband and daughters-respondents 
filed civil suit praying for a declaration to the effect that 
F 
they were co-owners in the property to the extent of their 
contribution and praying for an injunction against the 
defendant-appellant. The trial Court dismissed the suit. 
On appeal, the High Court reversed the findings recorded 
by the trial court and decreed the suit. The contention 
G 
raised by the defendant-appellant that the suit was hit by 
the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) 
Act, 1988, was repelled by the High Court. The High 
Court held that if a part of the consideration paid for the 
property in dispute had been provided by the appellant 
H 
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A in whose name the property was purchased, the 
transaction could not be said to be a benami transaction. 
The High Court was of the view that since the appellant 
had raised the contention that the entire sale 
consideration had been provided by him, he was 
B estopped from contending that the transaction was a 
benami transaction hit by the provisions of Section 4 of 
the 1988 Act. 
c 
D 
In the instant appeal, the primary question which 
arose for consideration was whether the sale transaction 
in favour of the appellant was saved from prohibition 
under Section 4 of the 1988 Act by reason 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.