BENAMITRANSACTIONSSUITSANDITSMETHODOLOGY

By:
ABDULZAKIRTAREEN
AdvocateHighCourt,Peshawar
ANINTRODUCTIONTOBENAMITRANSACTION
Thewordtransactionmeanstheactoraninstanceofconductingbusinessorotherdealings(Black'sLaw
Dictionary).
Transactionisaprocesscarriedoutbytwoormorepersonsforthepurposeofbenefitandreciprocal
concessiontoeachother.Thewordtransactionisnotanewterm;thepeopleofancienttimeswerealso
carryingoutvarioustypesoftransactions/dealings/businesseswitheachotherbybuyingandsellingout
differentcommoditiesandproperties.Inancienttimetherewasnoconceptofcoinsormoney/cashetc,one
kindofgoodswasexchangeforother,inthebookofhistorythissortofbusiness/transactionisremembered
inthenameofBarterSystem.ButwiththepassageoftimeandadvancementofSocietiesthepeople
adoptedusingsomespecialthingbearingspecialmark/signofrenownedpersonalityorthingforthe
purposeofbusinessandothermattersrelatedtobuyingandselling.Inthiswaytheprocessoftransaction
commencedslowlyandgraduallyandthepeoplestartedbusinesses.Astherearevariouskindsofbusiness
transactions,oneofthemisBenamiTransaction.Keepinginviewthetechnicalities,importanceofthis
uniquetypeofTransaction(Benami);it'sHistoryandthelawrelatingtoBenamiTransactionisdiscussed
hereinbelow,asashortsurveyonthistopicwithreferenceofnewlyreporteddictumofSuperiorCourtsof
PakistanandalittledescriptioninrespectofmethodologyofsuitsrelatingtoBenamiTransaction.
EXPLANATION,MEANINGANDORIGINOFBENAMITRANSACTION
InthecasetitledS.IqbalAhmadversusJawaidIqbalreportedin2011CLC29Karachi,themeaningofthe
wordBenamiisdescribedandtranslatedassuch:
ThewordBenamiisderivedfromtwoPersianwords,i.e.Baymeanswithoutand
NamimeansnamehenceBenamimeansthetransactioncarriedoutorundertakenby
someoneelseinthenameofotherPerson.
Benamimeans,atransactionwhereapersonbuysapropertywithhisownmoneybutinthenameof
anotherperson.
Literallybenamimeanswithoutnameviz;atransactionaffectedbyapersonwithoutusinghisownname.
AstotheorigintothepracticeofBenamitransactionisconcerneditisdifficultandcontroversialquestion
andaspectofBenamitransaction.Italwaysremainsanunsolvedparttopredictthetimeatwhicharosethe
systemofacquiringandholdingpropertyorcarryingonbusinessinthenamesofothers.Sointhepresent
circumstancesitisamatterofconjecturesandsurmisesandnoexactconclusioncanbedrawnastoorigin
andpracticeofbenamitransaction.
BENAMITRANSACTION

BenamitransactionisakindoftransactioninwhichthepurchasedpropertyisinthenameofBenamidar
buttheactualownerissomeoneelsewhohadbeenactuallypaidtheconsiderationcalledtherealowner.In
otherwords,whereapersonpurchasespropertywithhisownmoneybutinthenameofanotherperson
withoutanyintentiontobenefitsuchotherperson.
InBenamiTransactiontherearealwaysthreepersons,incertaincircumstancesmorethanthreepersons.
1.

Benamindar:
TheOstensibleowneronwhosenameonlythepropertyispurchasediscalledBenamidar.
OrtheNominalowneriscalledbenamidar.

2.

Seller:
Thepersonwhosellouttheproperty.

3.

TheRealOwner:
ThePersonwhoactuallyhavepaidtheconsiderationamounttopurchasethepropertyin
thenameofotherperson(Benamidar)withoutintendingtogiveanybenefittohim.

SCOPEANDOBJECT
Benamitransactionhaswiderscope.ThissortoftransactionnotonlywitnessedinHinducommunitybut
wasinpracticeinMuhammadanalsoandstillbenamitransactionisnotbarredanditisinpracticein
Pakistanalso.
TheobjectofBenamiTransactionistopurchasepropertyinthenameofaperson,andtheactual
owner/purchaserdidnotbringhisnameonscreenandonthetitledeeds.Sometimesitsohappenthatan
abroadsettledpersonwantstopurchasepropertyforbusinesspurposesandhehasacompulsionthatatthe
timeofresellingonprofitablepricehewillnotbepresentinthecountrywherethepropertyissituated,
andwhenever,thegoodpayer/customerwantsabargain,duetohisabsencethebargaincannotbe
completed,sowiththisbackdropandobjectthepurchasermakesacontractintheshapeofBenami.That
atthetimeofresellingthesamehecanissuedirectiontothelocalperson/benamidartoresellitandsend
itsoutcome/moneythroughonlinebankingetc.
BenamiTransactioncreatestrustbyimplication,notatrustinrealsenseandthepositionofbenamidaris
thatofatrusteefortherealownerandsuchtransactionistreatedasperfectlygenuineonewhichislegally
enforceablehavingsameaffectsasresultingtrust.
ThelawimposesanobligationinthenatureoftrustontheBenamidar.Heisaconstructivetrustee.He
holdsthepropertyforthebenefitofthepersonwhohastherealtitletoit.Whenatransactionofpurchaseis
provedtobeBenami,Courtsgiveeffecttotherealtitleandnottothenominaltitle.
THECONCEPTOFLAWRELATINGTOBENAMITRANSACTION
AlthoughthereisnospecialStatueorActrelatingtoBenamiTransactionbutitiswidelyaccepted,
practicedinallsocietiesoftheworld.Becausethelaw/guideline/principlesinrespectofbenami
transactionsisintroducedbythesuperiorCourtsintheirplethoraofverdictswhichbythepassageoftime

hastakentheplaceoflawforbenamidisputes,assuchprecedentsisoneofthesourceoflawandalways
regardedaslaw.
InaCaseMajor(Retd)MAZHARMAHMOODKHANVERSUSKHUSHALKHANJADOONReportedin
1996MLD316Karachicitation(C)itisheldthat;'BenamiTransactionbeingcustomofcountrywas
recognizedassuch;andsuchtransactioncouldnotbedeemedtobeashamtransaction.Inbenami
transaction,onepersonpurchasespropertyinthenameofanotherbutforhisownbenefit.Nominalowner
deemedtobeabenamidar.
POINTSFORDETERMINATIONINCASESOFBENAMITRANSACTION
AsdiscussedaboveBenamitransactionisquitedifferentfromallotherkindsoftransactionscarriedinone
wayorother.Asamatteroffactinallotherkindsoftransactionstherearetwopartiesthesellerandbuyer,
onebecometheownerofthepropertybypayingsomeconsiderationtootherparty.ButincaseofBenami
TransactiontheostensibleownerisonlyBenamidarandtheactualownerissomeoneelsewhohasactually
paidtheconsiderationtoseller,theBenamidarjustplayaroleofbridgebetweentheexownerandthe
subsequentrealowner.IncaseofjudicialproceedingstherealownermustprovetheBenamitransactionby
allmeans,reliable,cogentandunimpeachableevidence.Thecircumstancesandtheeventualitieswhereof
hepurchasedthepropertyinthenameofotherperson(ostensibleowner).
IncasetitledSaifurRehmanVsMst.RobinaKamal,reportedin2013CLC1810Lahorecitationa,itis
heldthat,fordeterminationofbenamitransaction,itisthedutyofthepartywhoraisessuchpleato
producelegal,relevantandunimpeachableevidence'.
Incasetitled:Mst.AsiaBibiVsDr.AsifAliKhanandothers,reportedinPLD2011SupremeCourt829,it
isheldthat,relevantfactorsfordeterminationofbenamitransactionaresourceofconsideration;who
exercisedcustodyovertheoriginaltitledeedandotherrelevantdocumentsatthetimetheywereintroduced
asevidenceinCourt;whoundertooktheconsiderationofpropertyinquestion;whowasinpointoffact
enjoyingquapossessionoverthesuitpropertyandmotiveforbenamitransaction.
FollowingarethefewpointsfordeterminationofBenamicharacteroftransaction,thateitherthe
transactionisBenamiornot:
(i)
(ii)

EssenceofBenami,i.e.Motive/intentionforBenamitransaction,

Possessionofsuitpropertywithwhomlies,
(iii)

SourceofconsiderationorSourceofincome(thathowapersonpaidtheconsiderationto
anotherperson),

(iv)

Custodyofallrelevantdocuments/titledeeds.

TheabovementionedpointsarereferredbyaugustKarachiHighCourtincasetilted:QuribAliVsDr.
ShahNawaz,reportedin2001CLC1599andthenbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofPakistanincasetitled
AbdulMajeedVersusAmirMuhammadandothersReportedin2005SCMR577citation(a).
ItisheldthatFordeterminationthequestion,whetheratransactionisaBenamitransactionornot,inter
aliathefollowingfactorsaretobetakenintoconsideration:
a.

Sourceofconsideration;

b.

Fromwhosecustodytheoriginaltitledeedandotherdocumentscameinevidence;

c.

Whoisinpossessionofthesuitproperty;and

d.

MotivefortheBenamiTransaction.

Incasetitled:MajorGeneralDr.AsifAliKhan,reportedin2010YLR3214Peshawarcitationb,itisheld
that,benamibeingneitheralawnorarule,extremecautionwastobeobserved;itsimplywouldamount
tochallengingagenuinetransactionmadeingoodfaith.Toarriveatajustconclusionastowhethera
transactionwasbenamiornot,factorstobetakenintoconsiderationwerethesourceofconsideration;from
whosecustodytheoriginaltitledeedandotherdocumentscomeinevidence;whowasinpossessionofthe
suitproperty;andmotiveforbenamitransaction.
IncaseGhulamMurtaza,reportedinPLD2010SupremeCourt569,itisheldthat,motiveinbenami
transactionswasthemostimportantoneandatransactioncouldnotbedubbedasbenamisimplybecause
onepersonhappenedtomakepaymentfororonbehalfoftheother.Therewereinnumerabletransactions
whereafatherhadpurchasedpropertywithhisownsourcesforhisminorsonordaughterkeepinginmind
thatthepropertyvestinminor.Suchtransaction,subsequentlycouldnotbechallengedbyfatherasbenami,
simplybecauseamountwaspaidbyhim.Therewerepeoplewho,withpositiveapplicationofmind
purchasedpropertiesinthenameofotherswithintentionthattitleshouldvestinthatother.Ifsuch
principlewasdeniedandthatofbenamiattractedsimplybecausesourcesofconsiderationcouldnotbe
provedinfavourofnamedvendee,itwouldshatterthemosthonestandbonafidetransactionsthereby
bringingnoendtolitigation.Atonetimehusbandcameoutwithreasonthatnameofhiswifeentered
merelytopleaseher,therecameprincipleofbonafides.goodwillandsanctitiesattachedtoatransactions.
Oncehavingdoneso,whenhusbandandwifewereamicablyliving,noonecouldturnaroundsubsequently
toclaimexclusivetitle,whenrelationshadbecomestrainedandspousesfellapart.Eveniftheamounthad
beenpaidbythehusband,yethecouldnothaveturnedaroundtoclaimthatwifewasabenami
beneficiary.
InCh.AbdulRahimcase,reportedin2009YLR605Karachi,theessentialingredientsforbenami
transactionsarehighlighted.
Further,theWorthySupremeCourtwhileadjudicatinguponacasetitledCh.GhulamRasoolvsMrs.
NusratRasooletcreportedinPLD2008S.C146citation(d)heldthat,Twoessentialelementsmustexist
toestablishthebenamistatusofthetransaction.Thefirstelementisthattheremustbeanagreement,
expressorimplied,betweentheostensibleownerandthepurchaserforpurchaseofthepropertyinthe
nameofostensibleownerforthebenefitofthepersonwhohastomakepaymentandsecondelement
requiredtobeprovedisthattransactionwasactuallyenteredbetweentherealpurchaserandsellertowhich
theostensibleownerwasnotparty.
IncaseTitledIQBALAHMADTURABIandothersversusTheState,reportedinPLD2004S.C830while
discussingBenamiTransactionitisobservedincitation(b)that:
Fromwhomtheconsiderationmoneycameandfromwhomthedocumentsofsalewasproduced
intheCourtplayadominantrolewhenthedisputewasbetweentherealownerandthe
benamidarbutintheotherparaofthesamejudgmentitisheldthatifthedisputeisbetweenthe
thirdpartyontheonehandandtherealownerandthebenamidarontheotherhandthenthesaid
considerationwouldloseitsimportanceandinsuchasituationtheconductofthepartiesandthe
surroundingcircumstancesweretobetakenintoviewtodetermine,whetherthetransactionwasa
benamioneornot
PLAINTINSUITSRELATINGTOBENAMITRANSACTIONS

Theplaintinsuitsrelatingtobenamitransactionsmustcontain,statementsoffactsconstitutingacauseof
action.Itmusthaveanexplanationthattheoriginaltitledeedsregardingthepropertysubjectofbenami
transactionareinpossessionoftheplaintiff.Itmustcontainfactsshowingwhytheplaintiffdeemedit
expedienttopurchasethepropertyinthenameofthedefendant.ThePlaintiffmusthighlightthe
circumstancesunderwhichthepurchasemoneywaspaidbytheplaintiff.Theplaintmustalsoshowthe
motiveforpurchasingthepropertyinthenameofthedefendant/benamidar.Itmustalsoshowthatthe
plaintiffisinpossessionofthepropertyandenjoyingusufructoftheproperty.Ifthedefendant/benamidar
isinpossessionofpropertyindispute,theplaintmustshowthattherentandprofithadbeenenjoyedbythe
plaintiffandthatthedefendantwasinpossessionasatrusteeforplaintiff.Theplaintmustalsoshowthat
thedefendanthasendangeredthetitleoftheplaintifftothepropertybysettingupanadversetitleinhim.
InGhulamQadircase,reportedin2008CLC887Lahore,itisheldthat,plaintiffhadfailedtomentionin
theplaintanyreasonormotiveforthepurchaseoflandinopenauctioninthenameofdefendant.Orderof
dismissalofsuitmaintained.
WRITTENSTATEMENT
Thedefendantmaycontestthesuitbyfilingwrittenstatementandhemayraisedanobjectionregardingthe
nonmaintainabilityofthesuitorthatthetransactioniseitherisvoidorvoidable.Hecanallegethatthetitle
deedsareinhisname.Ifheisinpossessionofthetitledeedssubjectofthebenamitransaction,hecan
showthefactsinthisrespect.Ifheisinoccupationofthepropertyhecanshowthisposition.Hecan
encounterandchallengethemotiveforwardedbytheplaintiff.
InothercasesifthedefendantisnottheBenamidar/ostensibleownerandifheisrealpurchaser,hecan
allegefactsinthisrespectbyshowingthatheisthecertifiedowner/purchaserbygivingparticularsofthe
sale.
Insomecaseslimitation,estoppelandotherlegalapplicablepleasmayalsobeforwardedinwritten
statementinordertocontesttheclaimoftheplaintiff.
ONUSTOPROVEBENAMITRANSACTION
Naturallyinalmostallsortofcases/suits,theBurdentoproveassertions/allegations/claimalwayslieson
theshoulderoftheperson(plaintiff/claimant)whoclaimorassertsomethingintheCourtofLaw.While
discharginghisonustoprovehiscase,theplaintiffwillfirstofallestablishonrecordhismotivefor
makingabenamitransaction,thatwhyhehasnotmadeanormalsaletransactionandwhatwerethe
compellingcircumstances/reasonsthathemadethetransactionintheshapeofbenami.Secondlyhemust
bringtheoriginaltitledeedsfromhisowncustodyontherecordoftheCourtandthirdlyhemusthave
produceevidentiarymaterialregardingthepaymentofconsiderationofthepropertywhichisthesubjectof
benamitransaction.FourthlyhemusthaveproduceaproofbeforetheCourtoflawthatthepropertysubject
ofbenamitransactionisactuallyinhisdirectorindirectoccupation.
TheaugustLahoreHighCourtwhiledecidingthecaseofKaramHussainKhan,reportedin2013MLD
713Lahorecitationd,heldthat,onustoprove.Principle.Partythatallegesaparticularfactisboundto
provethesame.
Incasetitled:MuhammadNawazMinhasVsMst.SuriyaSabirMinhas,reportedin2009SCMR124
citationa,itisheldthat,onusoftheparticularsale/purchaseifbenamiandtheapparentpurchaserisnot
therealowner,alwaysrestsonthepersonassertingittobeso.

SimilaropinionismadebytheaugustLahoreHighCourtinSyedNisarHussainCase,reportedin2006
CLC732citationa,whereinitisheldthat,onusinbenamitransactionisheavilyupontheshouldersofthe
personwhoassertstobetherealowner.
Incasetitled:S.AbidAliVsSyedInayatAli,reportedin2010CLC1633Karachicitationa,itisheldthat,
initialburdenofprooftoprovetransactionasbenami,isonthepartywhoallegesthatostensibleowneris
benamidar.Weaknessofdefendant'sevidencedoesnotrelieveplaintifffromdischargingtheburdenof
proof.
InHajiNawabKhancase,reportedin2009YLR2249Peshawar,itisheldthat,wheneveraperson
allegedatransactiontobeabenamiinnature,theessentialonuslayonhimtoprovethesame,butthesaid
onuscouldshiftduringtheevidence,ifheprovedtheingredientsofsaidbenamitransaction,thenthe
burdenwouldbeondefendanttodisprovetheallegation.Plaintiffhadproducedoverwhelmingevidenceon
recordtosubstantiatehiscaseandhadprovedonrecordthatpossessionsinceitsinceptionwaswiththe
plaintiff.Caseremandedfordecision.
EVIDENCEINDEFENSE
InMst.NasiraAnsariCase,reportedin2007CLC92KarachiCitationf,itisheldthat,admissionofwife
thatherhusbandwasamanofresourcesandacquiredpropertyindisputeinhername;thatshewithhis
fundsconstructedthesame,whichherhusbanddesiredtogifttohissons.Validity.Suchadmissionwas
sufficienttoestablishthatwifewasonlybenamidarandhusbandwasrealownerofproperty.
Iftheclaimantestablishhiscaseinlineofabovefourpointsandiotaofevidencethentheburdenshiftsto
thedefendant/benamidartorebuttheclaimoftheplaintiffononesideandtoprovethatthetransactionis
notthebenamioneandthattheconsiderationregardingthepropertywaspaidfromhisownpocketandhe
mustproducerelevant,cogentoralanddocumentaryproofregardingsourceofincomeutilizedinthe
purchaseofpropertywhichissubjectofthebenamitransaction.
Iftheplaintiffonthefirstpartprovetheaforereferredfourpointsanddischargedtheburdenliesonhis
shouldersthentheCourtwillseetheevidenceinrebuttali.e.theevidenceofdefendant/benamidarandif
heisfoundnotapersonofmeans/sourcestohavepurchasethepropertyfromhispocket,thentheCourt
willdefinitelyagreewiththeclaimofplaintiff/actualowner.
Incasetitled:MuhammadSiddiquiVsMessrsT.J.Ibrahim,reportedin2001SCMR1443citationa,itis
heldthat,initialburdenofproofisonthepartywhoallegesthatanostensibleownerisbenamidar.In
citation(b)ofthesamejudgmentitisheldthat,iftheclaimantfailedtoprovethesourceofmoneyandif
hedidnotappeartoprovethesource.Claimwasrightlydismissed.
InacaseTitledS.IqbalAhmadvsJawaidIqbalreportedin2011CLC29Karachiitwasheldthatinitial
burdenisonplaintifftoprovewithcogentmaterialthatheisostensibleowneranddefendantisonlyhis
benamidar,oncesuchevidenceisproducedbyplaintiff,theburdenshiftsfromplaintifftodefendantto
provehisownership.
Incasetitled:Mst.SaraBaiVsIqbal,reportedin2006MLD1429Karachicitationb,itisheldthat,
defendantfailedtoprovethatatthetimeofpurchaseofthesuitproperties,hehadsufficientfundsto
purchasethesame.Itisfurtherheldthatdefendantfailedtoprovehisexclusivepossessionofthesuit
properties,suitdecreed.
InthejudgmentreferredaboveitisfurtherheldthatthequestionwhethertransactionisBenamiin
characterornotdependsuponfactsandcircumstancesofeachcaseandnoabsoluteformulaoracidtestcan
belaiddowninsuchregard.

InDictaTitledAbdulMajeedvsAmirMuahmmadreportedin2005SCMR577itwasthat;

4.

1.

Itisthedutyofthepartywhoraisessuchpleatoprovesuchpleabyadducingcogentlegal,
relevantandunimpeachableevidenceofdefinitiveness.TheCourtisnotrequiredtodecide
thispleaonthebasisofsuspicions,however,strongtheymaybe.

2.

TheCourtistoexamineastowhohassuppliedthefundsforthepurchaseofproperlyin
dispute.Itisprovedthatpurchasemoneyfromsomepersonotherthanthepersoninwhose
favourthesaleismade,thatcircumstances,primafacie,wouldbestrongevidenceforthe
BenaminatureoftheTransaction.

3.

Thecharacterofatransactionistobeascertainedbydeterminingtheintentionofthe
partiesattherelevanttimewhicharetobegatheredfromallthesurroundingcircumstances
i.e.therelationshipofparties,themotivesunderlyingthetransactionsandanyother
subsequentconduct.

Thepossessionofthepropertyandcustodyoftitledeed.

Onethingisalsonoteworthythatcivilcasesarealwaysadjudicatedonthebasisofpreponderanceof
evidence.
TEST/CRITERIONFORBENAMITRANSACTION
Inthecasesofbenamitransactionitisseen,whoactuallypaidforpropertyandwhoreceivedbenefitsof
usufructisacriterionforbenamitransactionandalsoactualpossessionismostimportantinthisregard.A
benamitransactionisatransactioninwhichthetrueownerneverintendssuchpropertytobevestedin
ostensibleowner(Apparentowner/notrealowner).
Itisatransactionwhichconsistsoftwotransactions.Oneisagreement,expressorimplied,betweenthe
trueownerandtheostensibleowner,inwhichthetrueowneragreestopurchasepropertyinthenameof
ostensibleowner/benamidarforhisownbenefit,theotheristransactionbetweentheostensibleownerand
thepurchaser.
EVIDENCEBEYONDPLEADINGS
Aslikeothercivilcases,evidencebeyondpleadingsisnotconsiderable.Incasetitled:WasiudDinVs
FakhiraAkhter,reportedin2011SCMR1550,itisheldthat,plaintiffattemptedtoshowthatsome
propertybelongingtotheirfamilywassoldandproceedsthereoftogetherwithgoldandsilverbelongingto
theirsisterhadbeenutilizedforthepurposeofpurchasingpropertyinquestion.Suchpleaswereneither
takeninpleadingsofplaintiffsnortherewasanycredibleproofofsuchassertions.Baldstatementscould
notbereliedupon.
LIMITATIONFORBENAMISUITS
IntheLimitationAct,1908thereisnospecificProvision/Articleinitsfirstscheduleprovidinglimitation
forsuitsrelatingbenamitransaction.Incasetitled:Mst.SaraBaiVslqbal,reportedin2006MLD1429
Karachicitationa,itisheldthat,suitforwhichnoperiodoflimitationisprovidedelsewhereinthe
schedulecanbefiledunderArticle120oftheLimitationAct,1908.withinSixyearswhentherighttosue
accrue.

InthecaseofKaramHussainKhan,reportedin2013MLD713Lahorecitationb,itwasheldthat,
limitationforchallengingmutationasbenamiissixyears,suitbeyondperiodisrightlyheldastime
barred.
InMst.SharifaBibicase,reportedinPLD2012Lahore141citationb,itisheldthat,maximumsixyears
wasavailabletoplaintiffforfilingsuitforbenamitransactionbuthekeptsilentformorethan24years,
thus,suitwastimebarred.
Incasetitled:KaleemHaiderZaidi,reportedin2006YLR599Karachi,itisheldthat,forbenami
transactionsuit.Article120ofLimitationAct,1908wouldbeapplicablewhichprovidedsixyears,suit
havingbeenfiledbeyondtheperiodoflimitation,wasdismissed.
ShortlyspeakingthesuitfordeclarationbyarealowneragainstthebenamidariscoveredbyArticle120of
LimitationAct,whichprovidesaperiodof6yearsfromtheaccrualofcauseofaction.Thecauseofaction
willarisewhenthebenamidarrefusestoacknowledgetitleoftherealowner.
RECKONINGOFLIMITATIONFORBENAMISUITS
Incasetitled:NizamudDinAhmadVsAinudDinAhmad,reportedinPLD2010Karachi148,itisheld
that,righttosueaccruedtorealowneragainstbenamidar,whenhostileclaimofownershipby
benamidar/ostensibleownerhadcometotheknowledgeofrealowner.
Incasetitled:ChuttalKhanChacharVSMst.ShahidaRani,reportedin2009CLC324KarachiCitationa,
itisheldthat,LimitationofthreeyearswasprovidedunderArticle91ofLimitationAct,1908,forfiling
ofsuittocancelorsetasidetheinstrumentnototherwiseprovidedfor.Limitationwastorun,whenthefact
entitlingtheplaintifftohaveinstrumentcancelledorsetasidehadbecomeknowntohim.
QUESTIONOFCOURTFEEINBENAMICASES
Inajudgmentreportedin1995MLD316,ithasbeenheldbytheaugustCourtthatinasuitfordeclaration
onthebasisofBenamitransactionfactumofsalebyitselfbeingnotdisputedincontroversyrelatingto
Benamitransaction.Thedisputevirtuallyremainingconfinedtodeterminingthenormalandrealownerof
propertyprovisionofSection7(iva)CourtFeesActwasnotattracted.Theplaintiffwouldbeatlibertyto
stateintermsofSection7(iv)(c)CourtFeesAct,1870,theamountatwhichthevaluesofthereliefwas
sought.
MISUSEOFBENAMITRANSACTIONS
Benamitransactionissometimesmisusedbythepeopleinvolvedinmonetarycorruptionandtheyinorder
togetwhitetheirblackmoney(acquiredthroughcorruption)purchasepropertiesinthenamesofothers.
Forthepurposethatonthedayofaccountability(iftheyareaskedaboutit)theywillbeabletosavetheir
skin.
Itisalwaysseenthatcorruptpublicservantsneverpurchasepropertyintheirnamestoavoidchargesof
corruption,so,wheretheplaintiffisapublicservantandcannotpurchasepropertyinhisownnameand
sourceofincomeofdefendantisnotknownofwhichhecanpurchasepropertysubjectofbenami
transaction,itcanbeeasilydeterminethatthisisacaseofbenamitransactionandthatthepublicservantis
therealowner.

Sometimesitisseenthatthepeopleenterintoabenamitransactionwithdishonestmotiveinordertocheat
theircreditors,whentheydemandforrepaymentoftheirmoney,theyareinpositiontosaythattheyhave
nomeanstorepaytheloan.
Whydoestherealpurchaserofpropertyforthepurchaseofproperty,insteadofgettingthesaledeed
executedinhisownfavour,getsthesameexecutedinthenameofaperson,whetherthatpersonbehis
childorwifeorfriend?Innormal,circumstanceheshouldget,thesaledeedexecutedinhisownfavour.
Whenhegetsthesaledeedexecutedinfavourofanotherpersontheremustbesomereasonsfordoingso.
Theremaybevarietyofreasons.Buttheobviousonearethateitherthereislegaldisabilityonhispartto
purchasethepropertyorhefindsawayouttoinvesthisblackmoneyinanother'snameorhewantsto
avoidtheburdenoftaxes,intheshapeofincometax,wealthtax,orpropertytax.Inalltheseeventualities
infringementoflawisinvolvedandtherealpurchaserderivessomemonetarybenefitoutofbenami
transaction.Itisafteralapseofsometimeheseekstogetthepropertytransferredinhisownname.
Normallyfraudvitiateseventhemostsolemnproceedingsbut,ironically,inthecaseofbenamitransaction,
ourlegalsystemsfeedsthefraudbylendinghelptotherealowneringettingthepropertyrestoredtohim,
whichhehimselfatonetime,hadgottransferredinthenameofanotherperson.
NEGATIVEAFFECTSOFBENAMITRANSACTION:
HavingregardtothenatureofBenamitransaction,itsnegativeaffectsonsocietyaretoonumerousto
justifyitsretentioninourlegalsystem.Hereunderaredetailedafewofthemtogiveanideaofit:
(1)

Itavoidstaxesintheshapeofincometax,wealthtax,propertytaxandlandrevenue.

(2)

Itmotivatesbriberyandcorruptionbyfacilitatingabsorptionofcorruptmoneyinthe
Benamitransactions.

(3)

ItencouragescommissionoffraudoninnocentpurchasersfromBenamidars,havingno
knowledgeofBenamiCharacterofsaleinfavourofvendors.

(4)

Itsupportstheclaverhusbandstodeceiveinnocentwives.Firstlyahusbandinordertowin
favourofhiswifegetsapropertytransferredinhernamebutwhenthepassionofhusband
subsidesoradisputearisesbetweenthetwo,heturnsroundtoreclaimthepropertyonthe
pleaofbenami.

(5)

Itisahurdleinthewayofplanningbydeceivingtheplannerstobelievethebenamidarsto
berealownersoftheproperty.

(6)

Itbreedsbriberyandcorruptionamongthepoliticiansandpublicservantsinhelpingthem
toshieldtheirillegalwealthinBenamitransactions.

RISEINNUMBEROFBENAMICASESINCOURTS:
Thisactofpurchasingpropertyinthenamesofothersisariskyjob.Itisoftenseenthatinthecasesof
benamitransactions,thebenamidar(whoisownerofthepurchasedpropertyintitledeeds)changeshis
intentionandhestartsclaimingtheownershipofproperty.Becauseapparentlybenamidarisshownas
ownerofthepurchasedpropertyinthetitledocumentssoitiseasyforhimtoclaimownershipandto
exploitthesituationandtoblackmailtheactualowner/purchaser.Thisgiverisetothenumberofbenami
casesintheCourtsoflaw.Becauseinthiseventualitytheactualowner/purchaserisconstrainedtoknockat
thedooroflawdeclaringthetransactionasbenamianddeclaringhimselftobetheactualownerofthe
propertysubjectofthecontroversy.

PRECAUTIONSINTHECASESOFBENAMITRANSACTIONS:
Astheactofenteringintobenamitransactionisariskyonefortherealowner/purchaser,therefore,hemust
keepinmindthebelowmentionedfiveprecautions:
(i)

Hemusthavekepttheoriginaltitledeed/registereddeed/mutationofthepurchased
propertywithinhispossession.

(ii)

Hemusthavekepttheactualoccupationofthepropertysubjectofbenamiinhishands,

(iii)

Beforeenteringintobenamitransaction,hemusthavereason/justification/motive,thatin
caseofanycontroversyhecansatisfytheconscienceofthejudge,thatwhyhewas
compelledandmadethesaletransactionintheshapeofbenami.

(iv)

Hemusthaveaproofinrespectofsourceofincomeutilizedonthebenamitransaction.

(v)

Theremustbeanagreement,expressorimplied,betweenthetrueownerandthe
ostensibleowner,inwhichthetrueowneragreestopurchasepropertyinthenameof
ostensibleowner/bemimidarforhisownbenefit.

CONCLUSION:
FromtheabovediscussionIcandrawaconclusionthatthoughthereisnolegislativelawregarding
benamitransactionsbutthepeopleusetopurchasepropertyinthenamesofothersandexecutebenami
transactions.Sometimesbenamitransactionsbecomeasourceofcontroversybetweentheactualowner
andbenamidar,itgiverisetocivillitigation.Anumberofsuits,appeals,revisionsarependinginthis
respect.Toachievethetargetofsuccessinsuitsofbenamitransactions,knowingitsmethodologyis
needofhour.