SC: Benami transactions also cover a transaction where part of the consideration is paid by some other person

The Supreme Court held that even if a part of the consideration for the property had been paid/provided by the person in whose name the property was purchased, the transaction would be a 'benami transaction' as per section 2(a) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act,1988 ('the 1988 Act'). It is not necessary that entire consideration should be paid /provided by another person(s) before a transaction can be termed as benami transaction.

However, the transaction in the instant case was saved from the mischief of Sec. 4 of the 1988 Act by reason of the same falling under the exception provided in Sec. 4(3)(b) i.e. the parties were closely related to each other, lend considerable support to the case of the respondents and the appellant held the tenancy rights and the ostensible title to the suit property in a fiduciary capacity vis-à-vis his siblings. - MARCEL MARTINS v. M. PRINTER [2012] 21