Ostensible owner (Benami Transaction) (Sn. 41 T.P.

Act)

This principle was explained by the Privy Council in Lakshman Vs. Kali Charan.

A held out that his wife W is the owner of immovable property called K, as she had bought it
from her Stridhana. When A died W sold the property K to D who bought bonafide for value.
A's son S, sued D to recover the property. Here the court held that S could not recover the
property. Of course, the innocent purchaser was protected.

The doctrine of Ostensible owner must have the following conditions: a) The transferor
should be the ostensible owner of the prop erty (benamidar) without name. b) He must be
holding the property with the express or implied consent of the real owner. c) The transferee
from the ostensible owner must have paid consideration and acted with reasonable care & in
good faith. In such a case the real owner cannot set aside on the ground that the transfer is
voidable. The general rule is that no person can pass a title better than what he himself has.
Sn.41 dealing with ostensible owner is an exception to this rule provided all the conditions set
out above are fulfilled.

Eg.: A sent money to B and purchased an immovable property in B's name. B was managing
the property but sold it to C. Can A recover it from C? A cannot recover, if C has acted in
good faith and taken the property for valuable consideration.

Case laws: padam chand v lakshmi devi – a gift deed was executed by father, who was the
ostensible owner of the property in favour of his daughter and the consideration for the
transfer was contended to be love and affection in favour of his daughter. It was held that a
gift is parting of the property by the owner without any pecuniary benefit and that section 41
of the tpa had no application in the present case.