You are on page 1of 18

CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

PROJECT OF PROPERTY LAW


TOPIC: - EXAMINING THE ESSENTIALS OF TRANSFER OF
OSTENSIBLE AND UNAUTHORISED PERSON AND THEIR
DIFFERENCE

Submitted To Course Instructor Submitted By Student

Asst. Proff Pallavi Singh AMAR ALAM


BA.LLB.(Hons)
Subject- Property Law 5th Semester
Course Code – LAW 302 3rd Year
Continuous Assessment-III Enrollment No. CUSB1713125003
Synopsis
1. Introduction

2. Transfer by Ostensible Owner

 History behind the section

 Principle behind the section

 Case study: Ramcoomar vs Macqueen

 Requirement for the section

3. Benami Transaction

 History

 Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act 1988.

 How a sale transaction is Benmai Transaction

 Onus to proof
 Prohibition of benami transaction

4. Difference between ‘Ostensible Owner’ And ‘Benamdar’ As envisaged by Benami

Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988

5. Impact of Passage of Benami Transaction (prohibition) Act, 1988 on Sec 41

6. Critical Analysis

7. Conclusion

8. Bibliography

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION:

Property is one of the important asset to the family for leading the day to day life, like building

shop etc. it became the essential element like food & clothes in today life. These are some rights,

which are known as human right or fundamental right because they are very fundamental for

existence of human being and live and development of human to its fullest. The people are more

interested in investing property beside any other form of asset, the reason being that it is always

profitable as you can reside in the property or can it on lease or can sale it in higher price.

Ostensible ownership is the concept which allows family members to purchase property in the

name of another member in the family for the future protection of the person. The concept

ostensible owner in mentioned under sec 41 of transfer of property Act.

The reason researcher is researching in this area of property law because recently there have been

much deliberation on the law to tackle Benami Transaction. The aim of this project to understand
and analyze provision of Benami Transaction (prohibition) Act, 1988 in right of Transfer of

Property Act, 1882. The researcher tries to understand how benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act,

1988 has impacted transfer of property.

CHAPTER 2 -Transfer by ostensible owner:

The chapter II of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deal with the Transfer of Property by Act of
Parties in the Section 41 deal with Transfer by Ostensible Owner.

Section 41. Transfer by Ostensible Owner: - where, with the consent, express or implied, of the
persons interested in immovable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and
transfer and transfer the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be voidable on the ground
that the transferor was not authorized to make it:

Provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain the transferor had power
to make the transfer, has acted in good faith.

History behind the section

The rule is extended form of law of estoppel which is enunciated in the Indian Evidence Act,1 and
it is the exception to the general rule nemo dat quod non habet which mean that a person cannot
convey a better title than he has himself in the property.2 The rule was recognized in India long

1
See sec. 115, Act I of 1873; mutsaddilal v. daleep singh, 6 A.L.J. 967 at p. 974.
2
see sec. 27, sale of goods Act; gurubux singh v. nikka singh AIR 1963 S.C. 1917 at p. 1919
before the present enactment3 and its principle has been since held to be applicable to execution
sales and to localities where the act itself is not yet in force.

Principle behind the section

The principle behind the section is that of two innocent persons, or equally guilty persons where
the law has to make a choice as to whom has to penalize, the law will penalize the person whose
indiscretion has enabled the fraud and favor who is in possession. This section is treated as
principle of equity before it codifies, this section is founded on the following portion of the
judgment by the Judicial committee in Ramcoomar’s case4

Case study on Ramcoomar vs Macqueen

Facts:

Alexander Macdonald who lived in Calcutta had a mistress known as Bunno Bibee. He had two
children by her. One of them was the respondent, Macqueen. The property in dispute was in the
name of Bunno Bibee. The sale deed stood in her name. she received the rent from the tenant.

In June, 1843, she sold the property to Ramdhone Koondoo (father of Ram Coomar) for Rs. 945.
Subsequently, the purchaser created important buildings upon the land and increased the value to
such extent that the property was value at Rs. 40,000. After the death of Bunno Bibee, a suit was
brought against Ram Dhone by Macqueen, claiming under the will of Alexander Macdonald. The
claim put forward in the suit was that the purchase, although in the name of Bunnoo Bibee was a
benami by Macdonald that he was the real purchase, but had her name in making the purchase.

The defense put forward by the defendant was that their father purchased the estate of Bunno Bibee
without any notice of the benami title.

The Calcutta High court decided in favor of the respondent and decreed the court.

Decision: On appeal to the Privy Council, the Judgement of the Calcutta High Court was reversed
and suit dismissed

3
Mohan Chunder v. Lesser Chunder, 1 l.JU. (N.S) 266.
4
Ramcoomar vs. Macqueen, (1872) 11 being LR 46 (52)
Judgment.- In the course of the judgement their lordship of the privy council observed: “It is a
principle of nature equity, which must be universally applicable, that where one man allows
another to hold himself out as the owner of the an estate, and a third person purchases it for value
from the apparent owner in the bslif that he is the real owner, the man who so allows the other to
hold himself out, shall not be permitted to recover upon his secret title unless he can overthrow
that of the purchase by showing, either that he had direct notice, or something which amount to
constructive notice of the real title, or that there existed circumstances which ought to have put
him upon an enquiry that, if prosecuted, would have led to a discovery of it.”

Accordingly, assuming that Macdonald was the real owner, but he had allowed Bunno Bibee to
hold herself out as the real owner, he or his representatives could not recover upon their secret title
unless they could prove that the purchaser had direct or constructive notice of the title. Appeal
was, therefore allowed.

By reading the section the question arises how is Ostensible Owner?

Ostensible is a word used to describe something that is apparent and obvious5. An ostensible owner
is a person who is apparently or obviously appears to be the owner, though in reality he is not. But
he as all kind of the indicas of ownership that real owner has.6 It like the real owner delegated all
his ownership power to the someone for temporary period or permanent. He is different from
tenant, lease and mortgager. His behavior and conduct appears to be that of the owner of the
property with the consent or the conduct of the real owner.7

The courts laid down some ostensible owners as follows

 A woman owns property and permit her husband to deal with it as if he is the owner. Then
the husband is ostensible owner.
 If the daughter gets married and left away and allow her brother to take all decision with
the property. Then he is ostensible owner.8

6
Kannahi Vershi v Ratanshi Nenshi AIR 1952 Kutch 85
7
Sonal singh v. Hukum Singh Chauhan, AIR 2007 (NOC) 2054 (Utr)
8
Mul Raj v. Fazal Imam AIR 1923 kutch 55.
 Where the mother act as manager of the property and right to alienate for necessity. 9
 A displaced person was allotted land by the government would be ostensible owner.
 A benamidar is an ostensible owner.

The court list some of who is not ostensible owner

 If a person was a menial servant in occupation of property, he would not be an ostensible


owner.10
 Karta is not an ostensible owner.11
 The possession of a manger cannot be treated as ostensible owner with the consent of the
real owner.12
 Trustee of the property is not ostensible owner.13
 A co-sharer in occupation of a joint family residential property cannot be held to be an
ostensible owner.14
 Mortgager is not ostensible owner.15

By understanding how is Ostensible Owner it cerate the question what is transfer by Ostensible
Owner?

The section is an exception to the general principle of contract nemo dat quod non habet, which
means that a person cannot convey a better title than he himself has, and resolve the dispute which
arises when the right of two innocent person come into conflict. The rule is simply state the person
who act like the owner of the property with the implied and explicit consent of the real owner, had
transfer the property for consideration to another party, the transfer shall not be voidable on the
ground that the transferor was not authorized to make it. Unless the real owner sent the constructive
notice to the transferor and transferor must acted in the good faith.

Requirement of the section:

9
Kuttappa nair v Kuttisankaran Nair (1957) 2 Mad Lj 603.
10
Joku vs. Mehandi 1881 ALL WN 67.
11
Rangaswami vs. Sundarapandia AIR 1952 SC 207.
12
Jamnadas v uma Shankar (1914) ILR 36 ALL 308
13
Ratan sen v suraj bhan AIR 1944 ALL1;
14
Lakshmiba v rajiv AIR 1949 Kutch 34:
15
Narayan v. purchayat (1931) 27 Nag LR 144.
The following condition are necessary for the application of the section16, namely

 The transferor is the ostensible owner;


 He is so by the consent, express or implied, of the real owner;17
 The transfer is for consideration;
 The transferee acted in good faith, taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor
had power to transfer.18

If any of these element is wanting, the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the section.19 The
basis of the rule is some representation or act or conduct on the part of the true owner.20

If we see the requirement author already discussed about the who is the ostensible owner. Know
author move into other requirements.

Consent of the real owner

The possession and ostensible ownership must be with the consent of the real owner of the
property. The real owner of must be also capable of giving consent 21 to the transfer and should
have given it with free will.22 The transferor should be shown to have been the ostensible owner
with the express or implied consent of the true owner but the transfer itself need not be with the
consent of the true owner.23 The section therefore will not apply if the real owner does not give
the consent, and had in fact challenged the occupation of the possessor.

In shafiquallah v. samiulah,24 after the death of the owner the property was in the possession of
his illegitimate son, who in law is illegitimate sons, who in law, were ineligible to inherit his
property. The real heir filed a suit claiming the possession of the property as per his entitlement
under the law of inheritance. However, the possessors retained the possession, entered their name
in the revenue records and later sold the property to a third party, C. This sale was effects after the

16
Gholam Siddique v Jogendra Nath (1926) 31 Cal WN 205.
17
Abdul Gaffer v Nawab Ali AIR 1949 Assam 17.
18
Chandi Prosad Ganguly v Gadadhar Singh Roy AiR 1949 Cal 666.
19
Ballu Mal v Ram Kishan (1921) ILR 43 ALL 263.
20
Ramrao v State of Bombay [1963] 1 SCR 322 (supp), AIR 1963 SC 827.
21
Lickbarrow v Mason (1787) 5 Term rep 683.
22
Gurcharan Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala, AIR 1989 P&H 127.
23
Fazal Hussain v. Mh Kazim, AIR 1934 ALL 193;
24
P Convent v. Subbana AIR 1948 Mad 320;
rightful heir has already filed the suit claiming possession of the property. This suit was decreed
in favour of the heir. The mortgagee claimed the benefit of s. 41 but his claim was rejected on the
two grounds:

 The possession the property was not with the consent of the real owner of the property,
rather a suit already been instituted challenging their possession;
 The mortgage was affected while the suit with respect to this property was already pending
in a court. Thus, the transferee/mortgagee had become a transferee subject to the rule of lis
pendens, and was bound by the decision of the court.

The consent can be implied also. The consent need not be express or inwriting. It includes implied
consent as well. Where, by conduct a person allows other to deal with his property as his own,25 it
would amount to implied consent, but a mere silence would not amount to implied consent,26 more
so when a person is not aware of his right, or unless there is a duty to speak or it is to include a
belief that the party keeping silence has no right.

Transfer for consideration

The principle protecting a transferee applies only when the transfer is for consideration. A
gratuitous transferee is not protected. Thus, the principle does not apply in case of gifts and other
transfers effected without consideration.

Transferee must take Reasonable Care

What is absolutely essential to show is that the transferee had taken such reasonable care as an
ordinary man of business would take. Even otherwise, there is always a duty imposed on an
ordinary prudent person, and hence the transferee is expected to be vigilant and protect his own
interest. Here, a duty is imposed on the transferee to make inquiries into the title of the transferor
unless the title is clear and he cannot absolve himself by stating that he entrusted his duty to his
solicitor or relied merely on the entries in the revenue or khewat municipal and police register.

Burden of proof:

25
Mulchand Hazarimal v. Hassomal, AIR 1937 Sau 177.
26
P convent v. Subbana, AIR 1948 Mad 320;
the basic principle in law is that the right of the legal owner should, prima facie., be protected
unless he has done something to induce innocent purchaser or pledge in to the belief that the
immediate possessor is the true owner. Mere bona fide on part of the purchase or the pledgee is
not enough. He will have to prove that by some act or omission, the true owner has forfeited the
right to recover back his possession. It is therefore incumbent upon the party resisting the claim of
the true owner to adduce strict proof of the equities which have arisen in his favour or of the latches
on the part of the owner, which have led to advance him money.

CHAPTER 3 - Benami Transaction

The term “benami” has its origin from the Persian language which implies “without a name”.
According to Merriam Webster Dictionary term “benami” implies “made, held, done, or transacted
in the name of (another person) – used in Hindu law to designate a transaction, contract, or property
that is made or held under that is fictitious or is that of a third party who holds as ostensible owner
for the principal or beneficial owner”.

History

The earliest noteworthy mention of benami transactions was in the 18th century when the British
had colonized the territory of India. In the case of Gopeekrist Gosain v Gungapersuad27 it was held
that such benami transactions were a part of India’s custom and therefore must be recognized
unless otherwise provided by law. Thereafter, Section 81 and 82 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882

27
(1908) I.L.R. 35 Cal. 551
(hereinafter refereed as the “Act, 1882”) extended legislative recognition to benami transactions
due to which the Indian Courts were bound to enforce them. The rationale provided for justifying
these transactions was Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 according to which there is
no prohibition on transfer of property in the name of one person for the benefit of the other.

Benami Transaction (prohibition) Act, 1988

The Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”) was enacted
in order to prohibit all benami transactions and recovery of property which has been held as
benami. Section 3 prohibits entering into a benami transaction. The exceptions to the same are as
follows-

“the purchase of property by any person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter and it
shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the said property had been purchased for
the benefit of the wife of the unmarried daughter.”

Under transfer of property act it is clearly mentioned that when the one person pays consideration
& purchase the property in the name of another person the latter is considered as ostensible owner
& the transaction is benami transaction. Whereas, under the Benami transaction Act it is
prohibited. Now it is question arises that why it is permitted in one & prohibited in the other Act.

How a sale transaction is benami transaction. –

The test for determining whether a sale transaction is a benami transaction is now well settled. The
general rule of law is that where a person with fuds, supplies by himself, buy property in the name
of another, the is resulting trust in favour of former, the beneficial interest being in him though the
ostensible ownership in the latter.28

It was well – established that burden of proving that a particular sale is benami lies on the person
who alleges the transaction to be benami. The essence of a benami transaction is the intentio of the
party or parties concerned and often, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be
easily pierced thorough. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to

28
State of West Bengal v. Govinda Mahapatra, AIR. 1983 Orissa 36 at p.36
be benami of any part of the serious onus that rest on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere
conjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof.

In Jayadayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazra,29 it has been held that in the judgement reffered to above that
the question whether a particular sale is a benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining
the question no absolute, formulas or acid test, uniformly applicable in all situation can be laid.
After saying so, Supreme Court spelt out following six circumstances which can be taken as a
guide to determine the nature of transaction:

1. The source from which the money came;


2. The nature and possession of the property, after the purchase;
3. Motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour;
4. The custody of the title deed after the sale; and
5. The conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale;
6. the position of the parties and the relationship, is any, between the claimant and the alleged
benamidar;

The above indicia are not exhaustive and their efficacy varies according to facts of each case.

Onus to prove a transaction to be benami. –

The onus to prove Transaction to be benami one is on the person who alleges the same to be
benami. the principle is too well established that the apparent state of affairs must be taken to be
the real state of affairs unless the contrary is proved. Reference may be made to the case of Ch.
Gur Narayan v. Sheolal Singh.30 It has also been judicially recognized that, if the purchase is made
in the name of wife or son, the presumption of Hindu law is in favour of its being benami purchase
and the burden of proof lies on the party in whose name it was purchased to prove that he was
solely entitled to the legal and beneficial interest in such purchase estate.31

Prohibition of Benami Transactions

The parliament has enacted the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) act 1938 prohibiting benami
transaction under s 3(1), and making them punishable under s 3(3). The prohibition does not,

29
A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 171 : (1974) S.C.C. 3
30
A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 140.
31
Gopeekristo v. Gungapershad, 6 M.L.A. 53.
however, apply to the purchase of property by the person in the name of his wife or unmarried
daughter and it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the said property had been
purchased for the benefit of the wife or the unmarried daughter. Benami transaction is defined
under s 2(1) so as to mean any transaction in which property is transferred to one person for
consideration paid or provided by another person. The supreme court has held that the Benami
Transaction (Prohibition) Act is a piece of prohibitory legislation, and it prohibits benami
transaction subject to stated exceptions and make such transaction punishable, and also prohibits
the right to defences against recovery of benami transaction as defined in s 2(a) of that Act. 32

CHAPTER 4 - Difference between ‘Ostensible Owner’ And ‘Benamdar’ As


envisaged by Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988:

In the case of an ostensible owner as envisaged by Sec 41, there are indications of ownership in
hands of transferor like title, entries in records etc. In addition to that, he or she has apparent and
unconditional complete authority to deal with the property as a real owner. This authority is given
by the real owner through explicit declaration or implicit through conduct. Ostensible owner
represents the real owner in the transactions. For instance, if real owner of a land, Mr. X, who lived
in different village authorized his wife to use the land for whatever purpose she wanted. She sold

32
Mithilesh kumari v Prem Behari Khare ALR 1989 SC 1247, P 1253.
the land, here because of the relationship between Mr. X and his wife and instructions are given
by him she was considered as an ostensible owner who had the consent of real owner thus the
transaction was given protection of Sec. 41.

This is not the case with the position that Benamdar under Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act,
1988. In the case of Benami transaction, Benamdar is merely a name lender and unconditional
authority rests with a person who provides the consideration. Whereas in the case of ostensible
owner actual authority rests with the ostensible owner. This difference has been explained by
Supreme Court in Bhim Singh v. Kam Singh,

“Two kinds of Benami transactions are generally recognized in India. Where a person buys a
property with his own money but in the name of another without any intention to benefit such other
person, the transaction is called Benami. In that case, the transferee holds the property for the
benefit of the person who has contributed the purchase money, and he is the real owner. The
second case which is loosely termed as Benami transaction is a case where a person who is the
owner of the property executes a conveyance in favor of another without the intention of
transferring the title to the property thereunder. In this case, the transferor continues to be the
real owner. The difference between two kinds of Benami transactions lies in the fact that in former
case there is an operative transfer from the transferor to the transferee though the transferee holds
the property for the benefit of the person who has contributed the purchase money, in the later
case, there is no operative transfer at all and the title rests with the transferor notwithstanding the
execution of the conveyance.”

CHAPTER 5 - Impact of Passage of Benami Transaction (prohibition) Act, 1988 on Sec 41:

sec. 41 is an exception to Benami transactions due to its reliance on principles of natural equity.
This is explained by Judicial Committee in Ramcoomar Koondoo v. Macqueen,

“It is a principle of natural equity, which must be universally applicable, that where one man
allows another to hold himself out as the owner of the estate, and a third person purchases it for
value from the apparent owner in the belief that he is the owner, the man who allows other to hold
himself out shall not be permitted to recover upon his secret title unless he can overthrow that the
purchase by showing either that he had direct notice or something which amounts to constructive
notice, of the real title, or that there existed circumstances which ought to have put him upon an
enquiry that if prosecuted, would have led to a discovery of it.”

After analyzing different cases and concept of ostensible ownership, the drawing conclusion is
that Ostensible ownership derives its legitimacy from the ideas of equity and natural justice, in
particular, the doctrine of estoppels. It is an exception to the doctrine nemo at quod nonhabit since
it does, for reasons of quality, allow ostensible owners to have delivered the rights of true
ownership to bone fide transferees. Benami transactions are where the real ownership lies in
another who pays the consideration, while the ostensible ownership lies in the benamdar who only
lends his name to the title deeds.

Since the enactment of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 an ostensible owner has
become a real owner except in certain situations. So, clearly, after the passing of the Benami
Transactions Act, the scope of application of section 41 has become very limited. Ultimately, the
transferee, who purchases the property from the ostensible owner, cannot take the benefit of section
41 unless the ostensible owner is the wife or unmarried daughter of the real owner.

Thus, in the conclusion of this chapter about the impact on Sec. 41, researcher would like to say
that inherently Sec. 41 deals with a different kind of Benami transaction. With the passage of
Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 it has further limited the scope of ostensible
transaction envisaged by Sec 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1988.

CHAPTER 6 - Critical Analysis

In order to present the collision between Transfer of Property Act & Benami Transaction Act
regarding the concept of ostensible ownership i.e. - Transfer of property Act, 1882 allows
purchasing the property in the name of another person which is known as ostensible ownership.
Whereas the Benami Transaction Act, 1988, in spite of having the same meaning as that of
ostensible owner under Transfer of Property Act, then why purchase of property in the name of
another is permitted under the former Act; at the same time is prohibited under the later Act?
After analyzing different cases and concept of ostensible ownership, the drawing conclusion is that
Ostensible ownership derives its legitimacy from the ideas of equity and natural justice, in
particular the doctrine of estoppels. It is an exception to the doctrine nemo dat quod non habet
since it does, for reasons of equity, allow ostensible owners to have delivered the rights of true
ownership to bone fide transferees. Benami transactions are where the real ownership lies in
another who pays the consideration, while the ostensible ownership lies in the benamidar who only
lends his name to the title deeds.

Since the enactment of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 an ostensible owner has
become a real owner except in certain situations. So, clearly, after the passing of the Benami
Transactions Act, the scope of application of section 41 has become very limited. Ultimately, the
transferee, who purchases the property from the ostensible owner, cannot take the benefit of section
41 unless the ostensible owner is the wife or unmarried daughter of the real owner.

CHAPTER 7 - Conclusion

Benami transactions are essentially involves the transfer of property. Thus, Benami Transaction
(Prohibition) Act, 1988 naturally has some impact on Transfer of Property Act, 1882. `Through
this paper researcher majorly deals with the impact of this Act on Sec. 41 of Transfer of Property
Act, 1882. The researcher has come to the conclusion that, ‘benami transaction’ as defined in
Benami Transaction Act is different from that mentioned in Sec 41. Former eliminates the
difference between real owner and ostensible owner and thus limiting the scope of Sec. 41 which
talks about two separate owners that are real and ostensible to exceptions provided to Benami
transactions in Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Author after analyzed all the information of the Benami transaction and Ostensible Transaction,
in Benami transaction is prevention Act, but ostensible is protection Clause to the innocent third
party. Section 41 of TOPA Act is indirectly encourage the Benami transaction. Since there is no
expressly in the section 41 of the TOPA Act mention that this section is only applicable to the
unmarried daughter and house wife. Even though there is various judicial pronouncement, but the
act doesn’t expressly state. In way, the way the Section 41 of TOPA Act encourage the Benami
transaction.

So, the researcher the could recommend to bring the amendment to the TOPA Act section 41 by
providing the Clause that this section only Applicable to house wife and unmarried daughter.

CHAPTER 8 - Bibliography

Books

1. Mulla, The Transfer of Property Act, Lexis Nexis, 12th edition (2015).
2. Dr. Sir Hari Sinh Gour’s, Commentary on The Transfer of Proprty Act, 1882, Delhi Law
House, 14the Edition Vol 1 (2016)
3. S.N. Shukla, Transfer of Property Act, ALA, 29th edition (2015).
4. Vepa P. Sarathi, Law of Transfer of Property, EBC, 5th edition (2013)
5. Avtar Singh, The textbook on Transfer of Property Act, 1882, 125 (2nd, 2009).
6. Darashaw Jivaji Vakil, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, 389 (2nd, 2004).
7. G. C. Bharuka, Mulla’s Transfer of Property Act, 1882, 274 (10th edn., 2006).
8. S. Narayana, Law of Benami, 68 (8th edn. 2009).
9. Peter Reuter, Chasing Dirty Money, 13 (November 2004).
10. Shantilal Mohanlal Shah, Principles of the law of transfer, 69 (5th, 1980).

Article

1. Vibha Sirothiya, Position of ostensible owner in India property law vis-à-vis Benami
transaction, final year, NLIU, Bhopal.
2. Yuvraj Dilip patil, Ostensible Ownership vis a vis Benami Transaction in India.
3. Sneha Bhawnani, Benami Transaction – genesis and Analysis, Financial Consultant, 8th
November, 2016.
4. Abdul Zakir Tareen, Benami Transaction Suits and its Methodology, Advocate High
Court, Peshawar.

You might also like