SRI MARCEL MARTINSversusM. PRINTER & ORS.

                        [2012] 5 S.C.R. 480


A                     SRI MARCEL MARTINS
                                  V.
                        M. PRINTER & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 6645 of 2003)

                           APRIL 27, 2012
B
        [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.
                                                                  c
     The Municipal Corporation of the city of Bangalore
took decision to sell residential property originally owned
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.

          In the instant appeal, the primary question which
    arose for consideration was whether the sale transaction
c   in favour of the appellant was saved from prohibition
    under Section 4 of the 1988 Act by reason of the same
    falling under sub-section (3)(b) of Section 4.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D
       HELD: 1.1. A plain reading of Section 4 of the Benami
  Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 shows that no suit,
  claim or action to enforce a right in respect of any
  property held benami shall lie against the person in
E whose name the property is held or against any other
  person at the instance of a person claiming to be the real
  owner of such property. It is common ground that
  although the sale deed by which the property was
  transferred in the name of the appellant had been
  executed before the enactment of above legislation yet
F the suit out of which this appeal arises had been filed after
  the year 1988. The prohibition contained in Section 4
  would, therefore, apply to such a suit, subject to the
  satisfaction of other conditions stipulated therein. In
  other words unless the conditions contained in Section
G 4(1) and (2) are held to be inapplicable by reason of
  anything contained in sub-section (3) thereof the suit filed
  by plaintiffs-respondents would fall within the mischief of
  Section 4. [Paras 11, 12 and 13] [494-C-D; F-G; 495-D]

H         1.2. Sub-section (3) to Section 4 of the 1988 Act is in
    SRI MARCEL MARTINS v. M. PRINTER & ORS.               483


two distinct parts. The first part comprises clause (a) to       A
Section 4(3) which deals with acquisitions by and in the
name of a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family for the
benefit of such coparceners in the family. The said
provision has no application in the instant case nor was
any reliance placed upon the same by the plaintiffs-             B
respondents. What was invoked by the respondents was
Section 4(3)(b) of the 1988 Act which too is in two parts
viz. one that deals with trustees and the beneficiaries
thereof and the other that deals with persons standing
in a fiduciary capacity and those towards whom he                c
stands in such capacity. [Para 14) [495-G-H; 496-A-B]
     2. The expression "fiduciary capacity" has not been
defined in the 1988 Act or any other Statute for that matter.
And yet there is no gainsaying that the same is an
expression of known legal significance. It is manifest that      D
while the expression "fiduciary capacity" may not be
capable of a precise definition, it implies a relationship
that is analogous to the relationship between a trustee
and the beneficiaries of the trust. The expression is in fact
wider in its import for it extends to all such situations that   E
place the parties in positions that are founded on
confidence and trust on the one part and good faith on
the other. In determining whether a relationship is based
on trust or confidence, relevant to determining whether
they stand in a fiduciary capacity, the Court shall have         F
to take into consideration the factual context in which the
question arises, for it is only in the factual backdrop that
the existence or otherwise of a fiduciary relationship can
be deduced in a given case. [Paras 15, 22, 23) [496-D;
499-G-H; 500-A-B]                                                G
    Central Board of See,ondary Education and Anr. v. Adiya
Bandopadhyay and Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 497: 2011 (11) SCR
1028 - referred to.
    Corpus Juris Secundum; Words and Phrases,
                                                                 H
    484    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 5 S.C.R.

A Permanent Edition (Vol. 16-A p. 41); Black's Law Dictionary
    (7th Edn. Page 640); Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and
    Bouvier's Law Dictionary - referred to.
         3. The first and foremost of the circumstances
    relevant to the case at hand is that the property in
B   question was tenanted by 'S'. It is common ground that
    at the time of her demise she had not left behind any Will
    nor is there any other material to suggest that she
    intended that the tenancy right held by her in the suit
    property should be transferred to the appellant to the
C   exclusion of S's husband, or her daughters, respondents
    in this appeal, or both. In the ordinary course, upon the
    demise of the tenant, the tenancy rights should have as
    a matter of course devolved upon her legal heirs that
    would include the husband of the deceased and her
D   children (parties to this appeal). Even so, the reason why
    the property was transferred in the name of the appellant
    was the fact that the Corporation desired such transfer
    to be made in the name of one individual rather than
    several individuals who may have succeeded to the
E   tenancy rights. A specific averment to that effect was
    made by plaintiffs-respondents in the plaint which was
    not disputed by the appellant in the written statement
    filed by him. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that
    transfer of rights in favour of the appellant was not
F   because the others had abandoned their rights but
    because the Corporation required the transfer to be in
    favour of individual presumably to avoid procedural
    complications in enforcing rights and duties qua in
    property at a later stage. It is on that touchstone equally
G   reasonable to assume that the other legal representatives
    of the deceased-tenant neither gave up their tenancy
    rights in the property nor did they give up the benefits
    that would flow to them as legal heirs of the deceased
    tenant consequent upon the decision of the Corporation
H   to sell the property to the occupants. That conclusion
    gets strengthened by the fact that the parties had made
   SRI MARCEL MARTINS v. M. PRINTER & ORS.              485


contributions towards the sale consideration paid for the      A
acquisition of the suit property which they would not have
done if the intention was to concede the property in
favour of the appellant. Superadded to the above is the
fact that the parties were closely related to each other
which too lends considerable support to the case of the        B
plaintiffs that the defendant-appellant held the tenancy
rights and the ostensible title to the suit property in a
fiduciary capacity vis-a-vis his siblings who had by
reason of their contribution and the contribution made by
their father continued to evince interest in the property      c
and its ownership. Reposing confidence and faith in the
appellant was in the facts and circumstances of the case
not unusual or unnatural especially when possession
over the suit property continued to be enjoyed by the
plaintiffs who would in law and on a parity of reasoning
                                                               0
be deemed to be holding the same for the benefit of the
appellant as much as the appellant was holding the title
to the property for the benefit of the plaintiffs. [Para 24)
[500-C-H; 501-A-E)

     4. The cumulative effect of the circumstances of the      E
case when seen in the light of the substantial amount
paid by the father of the parties, thus puts the appellant
in a fiduciary capacity vis-a-vis the said four persons.
Such being the case the transaction is completely saved
from the mischief of Section 4 of the 1988 Act by reason       F
of the same falling under Sub-section 3(b) of Section 4.
The suit filed by the respondents was not, therefore,
barred by the 1988 Act as contended by the appellant.
The view taken by the High Court to that effect is affirmed
though for slightly different reasons. [Para 25) [501-F-G]     G

    5. This Court is not impressed by the contentions
urged on behalf of the appellant that the plea of a
fiduciary relationship existing between the parties and
saving the suit from the mischief of Section 4 of the 1988     H
    486      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012) 5 S.C.R.


A Act, was not available to the respondents, as the same
  had not been raised before the Courts below. The
  question whether the suit was hit by Section 4 of the 1988
  Act was argued before the High Court and found against
  the appellant. The plea was not, therefore, new nor did
B it spring a surprise upon the appellant, especially when
  it was the appellant who was relying upon Section 4 of
  the 1988 Act and the respondents were simply defending
  the maintainability of their suit. That apart no question
  of fact beyond what has been found by the High Court
c was or is essential for answering the plea raised by the
  appellant nor is there any failure of justice to call for
  interference at this stage. [Para 26] [501-H; 502-A-C]

                         Case Law Reference:

D         2011 (11) SCR 1028     referred to           Para 21

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    6645 of 2003.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 26.03.2001 of the High
E Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No.
  402 of 1995.

        Anoop G. Chaudhary, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina
  Madhavan, Gaurav Mitra, Vinita (for M/s. Lawyer's nit & Co.)
F for the Appellant.

        Naveen R. Nath, Lalit Mohini Bhat, Amrita Sharma for the
    Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
        T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises
    out of a judgment and order passed by the High Court of
    Karnataka at Bangalore whereby OS No .3119/90 filed by the
    respondents for a declaration to the effect that they are co-

H
   SRI MARCEL MARTINS v. M. PRINTER & ORS.                    487
               [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
owners of the suit property and for an injunction restraining the     A
defendant-appellant from interfering with their possession has
been decreed. The factual backdrop in which the suit is filed
may be summarised as under:

     The suit property comprises a residential house bearing          B
Municipal No.33, A and B Block, Austin Town, Bangalore-47
which was originally owned by the Corporation of the city of
Bangalore. The said property was leased by the Corporation
to late Smt. Stella Martins-mother of the parties before us. In
the year 1978 the Corporation took a decision to sell the said        C
property and presumably similar other properties to those in
occupation of the same. The State Government also approved
the said proposal with a note of caution that care should be
taken to correctly identify the occupants of the property being
sold. Before a sale could be effected in her favour, Stella
Martins passed away in November, 1982 leaving behind her              D
husband Sri C.F. Martins, their daughters (respondents in this
appeal) and the appellant who happens to be the only son of
his parents. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents is that the
Corporation desired that transfer of the tenancy rights held by
Smt. Stella Martins should be made to only one individual out         E
of the several legal representatives left behind by the deceased.
It was for that reason that the husband of the deceased-tenant
and the daughters-respondents herein all consented to the
transfer of the tenancy rights in favour of the appellant.
                                                                      F
     In due course the Corporation raised a demand for a sum
of Rs.48,636/- towards consideration for the sale of the suit
property to the appellant who held the tenancy rights. The case
of the plaintiffs-respondents before us is that in order to satisfy
the said demand Sri C.F. Martins-father of the parties in this        G
appeal, transferred a sum of Rs.35,636/- to an account jointly
held by respondent no.1 and her husband for purchasing a bank
draft in order to satisfy the Corporation's demand referred to
above. A demand draft for a sum of Rs.48,636/- was eventually
purchased on 13th November, 1986 by debit to the saving
                                                                      H
    488        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A account of respondent no.1 and her husband and paid to the
  Corporation on the 14th November, 1986. A sale deed was
  on payment of the sale consideration, executed in favour of the
  appellant on 26th June, 1987. The plaintiffs-respondents further
  case was that Sri C.F. Martins-plaintiff no.1 executed a
B registered will on 16th August, 1989 whereby he bequeathed
  his entire estate including the suit schedule property equally to
  all his children. An affidavit setting out the circumstances in
  which the suit schedule property was transferred in favour of
  the appellant was also sworn by the father of the parties on 15th
c November, 1989.

       A dispute relating to the suit schedule property having
  arisen between the parties including Sri C.F. Martins, their
  father, the latter filed a criminal complaint in December 1989
  followed by OS No.3119 of 1990 in the Court of VI Additional
D City Civil Judge, Bangalore, praying for a declaration to the
  effect that the plaintiffs were co-owners in the schedule property
  to the extent of their contribution and praying for an injunction
  restraining the defendant-appellant herein from interfering with
  the possession of plaintiff nos.1 and 2 over the same.
E
          In the written statement filed by the defendant-appellant, it
    was, inter alia, alleged that the entire sale consideration
    towards purchase of the schedule premises was provided by
    him, which made him the absolute owner of the suit property.
F   On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the
    following issues for determination:

          1.    Whether the plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs and
                defendant contributed the purchase money of suit
                site?
G
          2.    Whether the plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs and
                defendant are having a right in the schedule
                premises as co-owners?

          3.    Do the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful
H               possession of the suit property?
   SRI MARCEL MARTINS v. M. PRINTER & ORS.                  489
               [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

      4.    Do the plaintiffs prove that defendant threatened to   A
            throw away them from the suit property?

      5.    Whether defendant proves that the entire sale
            consideration towards purchase of suit schedule
            property was contributed by him?
                                                                   B
      6.    What relief or order?

     Addi. Issues:

     7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of        C
permanent injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly
dispossessing the plaintiffs other than by due process of law?

     The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support
of their respective cases eventually culminating in the judgment
and order dated 29th March, 1995 passed by the Trial Court         D
dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

     Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree the
plaintiffs-respondents filed Regular First Appeal No.402 of
1995 before the High Court which was allowed by the High           E
Court by its judgment and order dated 26th March, 2001
impugned before us. The High Court reversed the findings
recorded by the Trial Court and decreed the suit filed by the
plaintiffs-respondents, as already noticed above.

     The High Court on a re-appraisal of the evidence took the     F
view that the appellant had not succeeded in proving that he
had paid the entire amount of consideration for the purchase
of the suit property. The High Court held that the deposition of
the Bank Manager had clearly established that the joint account
held by the appellant and his father Sri C.F. Martins had never    G
been operated by the appellant. The High Court further held
that the appellant's case that he had withdrawn a sum of
Rs.23,000/- towards the sale consideration from the post office
savings account was not borne out by the record of the Post
Office the withdrawals having been made in the year 1982           H
    490      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A whereas the sales consideration was deposited five years later
  in 1987. The High Court further held that the deposition of
  plaintiff no.1 Sri C.F. Martins to the effect that his children had
  contributed equally towards the sale consideration had
  remained unassailed in cross-examination. The contention
B urged on behalf of the defendant-appellant herein that the suit
  was hit by The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988,
  was also repelled by the High Court.

        2. Appearing for the appellants Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary
  strenuously argued that the findings recorded by the High Court
C were contrary to the weight of evidence on record hence legally
  unsustainable. Mr. Chaudhary took pains to refer to us the
  depositions of the witnesses and the documents on record in
  an attempt to persuade us to reverse the findings of fact
  recorded by the High Court. Mr. Naveen R. Nath, learned
D counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand,
  argued that the High Court being the last Court of facts, in the
  absence of any perversity in the approach adopted by the High
  Court causing miscarriage of justice, there was no room for a
  reappraisal of the evidence and reversal of the findings
E recorded by the High Court on facts. He contended that the
  findings recorded by the High Court were even otherwise fully
  justified in the light of the overwhelming evidence on record.

       3. The High Court had, on the basis of the rival
F submissions made before it, formulated two distinct questions
  that fell for its consideration. The first was whether the entire
  sale consideration required for the purchase of the suit property
  was provided by the defendant or contributions in that regard
  were made even by the plaintiffs. The second question which
G the High Court formulated was whether the plaintiffs and the
  defendant were co-owners of the suit property and whether the
  sale transaction in favour of the appellant was a benami
  transaction so as to be hit by the provisions of the Benami
  Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

H         4. While answering the first question, the High Court
    SRI MARCEL MARTINS v. M. PRINTER & ORS.                     491
                [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

referred to the evidence on record including the deposition of          A
witnesses especially Respondent No.1 (PW-2) who had played
a dominant role in obtaining the sale deed from the
Corporation. This witness had stated that each one of the
children had contributed Rs.5000/- whereas the rest of the
amount was paid by their father Sri. C.F. Martins to make a total       B
of Rs.48,636/- demanded by the Corporation towards the sale
consideration for the premises. She also stated that the said
amount was paid by a demand draft obtained from her and her
husband's joint account which fact was certified even by the
bank in terms of Ex.P .2, a letter stating that the bank draft in       c
question had been issued by debit to the account jointly held
by her and her husband. The original sale deed was also in
possession of the said witness as was the possession of the
suit property. She had further stated that the amount of
Rs.35,636/- transferred to her account in November, 1986 had
                                                                        0
been paid by their father alone and not jointly by the defendant-
appellant and their father as alleged by the former.

     5. The High Court also relied upon the deposition of
respondent No.2 (PW-3) who similarly supported the plaintiffs'
version regarding contribution of Rs.5000/- for the purchase of         E
the suit schedule property and PW-4-the Bank Manager who
was examined to speak about Savings Account No.902
standing in the name of the first plaintiff and the appellant herein.
The Manager had deposed that plaintiff no.1, Sri C.F. Martins,
used to get cheques in pound sterling from the Crown Agents,            F
London and the bank used to purchase the cheques convert
the same into rupees and credit the amount to the account every
month. It was also stated that although the defendant-appellant
was a joint holder of the account, he had never operated the
said account. The High Court upon a careful reappraisal of the          G
evidence concluded as under:

     "From the aforesaid evidence on record what emerges is
     Rs.48,636.00 is the consideration amount paid to the
     Corporation for purchase of the schedule property. The             H
    492      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A         same amount was paid by way of a demand draft. The
          said demand draft was obtained from the Savings bank
          Account no. 339 of the second plaintiff on 13.11.1986.
          These facts are not in dispute. Now it is also not in
          dispute a sum of Rs. 35,636.00 was paid to the second
B         plaintiff by the first plaintiff from his Savings Bank Account
          which amount was utilized by the second plaintiff to
          purchase the demand draft towards sale consideration
          after making good the balance amount. The defendant
          contends in one breath that he sent a cheque for Rs.
c         48,636.00 from Bombay where he was working to the
          plaintiff for the purpose of sale consideration. The evidence
          on record clearly falsified this part of the case of the
          defendant and the falsity of the said stand taken by the
          defendant. The next version given by the defendant is this
          cheque for Rs. 35,636.00 issued from Savings Bank
D
          Account No.901 as per Ex.D.5 is a cheque issued by him
          to the second plaintiff towards the sale consideration. The
          evidence of the manager of the bank discloses that the
          defendant never operated the bank account. On the
          contrary, the evidence of P.W.1 and the other material on
E         record discloses that it is a cheque issued by P.W.1 in
          favour of PW.2 which again exposes the falsity of the case
          of the defendant."

        6. The High Court noticed the reasons given by the Trial
F   Court in support of its findings and found the same to be
    untenable. The High Court observed:

          "Therefore, in view of my discussion as aforesaid, I am of
          the opinion that the defendant has miserably failed to
          establish that the entire sale consideration of Rs.48,636.00
G
          was paid by him. On the contrary the plaintiffs have
          established their case that plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 and
          defendant have contributed Rs. 5000.00 towards the sale
          consideration and the balance amount has been
          contributed by the first plaintiff. As such it cannot be said
H
    SRI MARCEL MARTINS v. M. PRINTER & ORS.                   493
                [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
     that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit            A
     schedule property."

      7. We do not find any error much less any perversity in the
view taken by the High Court nor do we see any miscarriage
of justice to warrant interference with the finding that the sale
                                                                     B
consideration for the purchase of the suit property was
contributed by the plaintiffs and the defendant and not provided
by the defendant alone as claimed by him. We have, therefore,
no .hesitation in upholding the said findings which is at any rate
a.pure finding of fact.
                                                                     c
     8. On the second question the High Court relied upon the
principles underlying Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882. apart from holding that the purchase of the suit property
in the name of the appellant by contributions made by the
remaining legal representatives and the original owner did not       D
amount to a benami transaction. The High Court held that if a
part of the consideration paid for the property in dispute had
been provided by the appellant 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           E
appellant had raised the contention that the entire sale
consideration had been provided by him, he was according to
the High Court estopped from contending that the transaction
was a benami transaction hit by the provisions of Section 4 of
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.                         F

     9. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the High Court was in error in holding that the
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was not
applicable. The transaction in question argued the learned
counsel was benami to the extent the title to the property was       G
transferred in the name of the appellant while consideration for
such transfer was provided by the plaintiffs. He submitted that
Section 3 prohibited any benami transaction while Section 4
prohibited recovery of property held benami from a person in
whose name the same is held. He contended that the suit filed        H
    494       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A   by the respondents fell within the mischief of Section 4 and was,
    therefore, liable to be dismissed.

       10. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the respondents, on the
  other hand, submitted that not only on the principle of estoppel
  which the High Court had invoked but even in the light of the
8
  provisions of Section 5 of the Act the appellant was not entitled
  to plead the prohibition under Section 4 of the Act. He further
  argued that sub-section (3) (b) of Section 4 specifically saved
  a transaction where the property is held by the person who
  stands in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the person
C towards whom he stands in such capacity.

        11. Section 2 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act,
    1988 defines a benami transaction as under:

D         "Section 2 (a) "benami transaction" means any transaction
          in which property is transferred to one person for a
          consideration paid or provided by another person;"

        12. Section 3 forbids benami transaction while sub-section
  (2) thereof excludes such a transaction enumerated therein from
E the said provision. Section 4 of the Act, upon which heavy
  reliance was placed by Mr. Chaudhary, may be extracted in
  extenso:

          Section 4. Prohibition of the right to recover property
F         held benami.- (1) No suit, claim or action to enforce any
          right in respect of any property held benami against the
          person in whose name the property is held or against any
          other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming
          to be the real owner of such property.
G         (2) No defence based on any right in respect of any
          property held benami, whether against the person in whose
          name the property is held or against any other person, shall
          be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a
          person claiming to be the real owner of such property.
H
   SRI MARCEL MARTINS v. M. PRINTER & ORS.                    495
               [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
     (3) Nothing in this section shall apply,--                      A

     (a) where the person in whose name the property is held
     is a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family and the
     property is held for the benefit of the coparceners in the
     family; or                                                      B

     (b) where the person in whose name the property is held
     is a trustee or other person standing in a fiduciary
     capacity, and the property is held for the benefit of another
     person for whom he is a trustee or towards whom he
     stands in such capacity."                                       C

      13. A plain reading of the above will show that no suit,
claim or action to enforce a right in respect of any property held
benami shall lie against the person in whose name the property
is held or against any other person at the instance of a person      D
claiming to be the real owner of such property. It is common
ground that although the sale deed by which the property was
transferred in the name of the appellant had been executed
before the enactment of above legislation yet the suit out of
which this appeal arises had been filed after the year 1988. The     E
prohibition contained in Section 4 would, therefore, apply to
such a suit, subject to the satisfaction of other conditions
stipulated therein. In other words unless the conditions
contained in Section 4(1) and (2) are held to be inapplicable
by reason of anything contained in sub-section (3) thereof the
                                                                     F
suit filed by plaintiffs-respondents herein would fall within the
mischief of Section 4.

     14. The critical question then is whether sub-section (3) of
Section 4 saves a transaction like the one with which we are
concerned. Sub-section (3) to Section 4 extracted above is in        G
two distinct parts. The first part comprises clause (a) to Section
4(3) which deals with acquisitions by and in the name of a
coparcener in a Hindu undivided family for the benefit of such
coparceners in the family. There is no dispute that the said
provision has no application in the instant case nor was any         H
    496      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2012] 5 S.C.R.

A reliance placed upon the same by learned counsel for the
  plaintiffs-respondents. What was invoked by Mr. Naveen R.
  Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents was
  Section 4(3)(b) of the Act which too is in two parts viz. one that
  deals with trustees and the beneficiaries thereof and the other
B that deals with persons standing in a fiduciary capacity and
  those towards whom he stands in such capacity. It was argued
  by Mr. Nath that the circumstances in which the purchase in
  question was made in the name of the appellant assumes great
  importance while determining whether the appellant in whose
c name the property was acquired stood in a fiduciary capacity
  towards the plaintiffs-respondents.

       15. The expression "fiduciary capacity" has not been
  defined in the 1988 Act or any other Statute for that matter. And
  yet there is no gainsaying that the same is an expression of
D known legal significance, the import whereof may be briefly
  examined at this stage.

         16. The term "Fiduciary" has been explained by Corpus
    Juris Secundum as under:
E
          "A general definition of the word which is sufficiently
          comprehensive to embrace all cases cannot well be given.
          The term is derived from the civil, or Roman Law. It
          connotes the idea of trust or confidence, contemplates
          good faith, rather than legal obligation, as the basis of the
F         transaction, refers to the integrity, the fidelity, of the party
          trusted, rather than his credit or ability, and has been held
          to apply to all persons who occupy a position of peculiar
          confidence toward others, and to include those informal
          relations which exist whenever one party trusts and relies
G         on another, as well as technical fiduciary relations.

                 The word 'fiduciary', as a noun, means one who holds
          a thing in trust for another, a trustee, a person holding the
          character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of
H         a trustee with respect to the trust and confidence involved
   SRI MARCEL MARTINS v. M. PRINTER & ORS.                    497 ·
               [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    in it and the scrupulous good faith and condor which it           A
    requires; a person having the duty, created by his
    undertaking, to act primarily for another's benefit in matters
    connected with such undertaking. Also more specifically,
    in a statute, a guardian, trustee, executor, administrator,
    receiver, conservator or any person acting in any fiduciary       8
    capacity for any person, trust or estate."

     17. Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition (Vol. 16-A
p. 41) defines "Fiducial Relation" as under:

    "There is a technical distinction between a 'fiducial relation'   C
    which is more correctly applicable to legal relationships
    between parties, such as guardian and ward, administrator
    and heirs, and other similar relationships, and 'confidential
    relation' which includes the legal relationships, and also
    every other relationship wherein confidence is rightly            o
    reposed and is exercised.

           Generally, the term 'fiduciary' applies to any person
    who occupies a position of peculiar confidence towards
    another. It refers to integrity and fidelity. It contemplates
    fair dealing and good faith, rather than legal obligation, as     E
    the basis of the transaction. The term includes those
    informal relations which exist whenever one party trusts and
    relies upon another, a well as technical fiduciary relations."

     18. Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edn. Page 640) defines           F
"fiduciary relationship" thus:

    "Fi.duciary relationship- A relationship in which one person
    is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters
    within the scope of the relationship. Fiduciary relationships-    G
    such as trustee-beneficiary, guardian-ward, agent-
    principal, and attorney-client - require the highest duty of
    care. Fiduciary relationship usually arise in one of four
    situations: (1) when one person places trust in the faithful
    integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or
                                                                      H
    498       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A         influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes
          control and responsibility over another, (3) when one
          person ha a duty to act for give advice to another on
          matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4)
          when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally
8         been recognised as involving fiduciary duties, as with a
          lawyer and a clinet or a stockbroker and a customer."

          19. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary explains the expression
    "fiduciary capacity" as under:

c         "Fiduciary Capacity - An administrator who had received
          money under letters of administration and who is ordered
          to pay it over in a suit for the recall of the grant, holds it "in
          a fiduciary capacity" within Debtors Act 1869 so, of the
          debt due from an executor who is indebted to his testator's
D         estate which he is able to pay but will not, so of moneys in
          the hands of a receiver, or agent, or Manager, or moneys
          due to an account from the London agent of a country
          solicitor, or proceeds of sale in the hands of an auctioneer,
          or moneys which in the compromise of an action have
E         been ordered to be held on certain trusts or partnership
          moneys received by a partner."

        20. Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "fiduciary capacity"
    as under:

F         "What constitutes a fiduciary relationship is often a subject
          of controversy. It has been held to apply to all persons who
          occupy a position of peculiar confidence towards others,
          such as a trustee, executor, or administrator, director of a
          corporation of society. Medical or religious adviser,
G         husband and wife, an agent who appropriates money put
          into his hands for a specific purpose of investment,
          collector of city taxes who retains money officially
          collected, one who receives a note or other security for
          collection. In the following cases debt has been held not
H         a fiduciary one; a factor who retains the money of his
   SRI MARCEL MARTINS v. M. PRINTER & ORS.                    499
               [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
     principal, an agent under an agreement to account and pay        A
     over monthly, one with whom a general deposit of money
     is made."

     21. We may at this stage refer to a recent decision of this
Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v.             8
Adiya Bandopadhyay and Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 497, where
Ravindeeran, J. speaking for the Court in that case explained
the term 'fiduciary' and 'fiduciary relationship' in the following
words:

     "39. The term "fiduciary" refers to a person having a duty       C
     to act for the benefit of another, showing good faith and
     candour, where such other person reposes trust and
     special confidence in the person owing or discharging the
     duty. The term "fiduciary relationship" is used to describe
     a situation or transaction where one person (beneficiary)        D
     places complete confidence in another person (fiduciary)
     in regard to his affairs, business or transaction(s). The
     term also refers to a person who holds a thing in trust for
     another (beneficiary). The fiduciary is expected to act in
     confidence and for the benefit and advantage of the              E
     beneficiary, and use good faith and fairness in dealing with
     the beneficiary or the things belonging to the beneficiary.
     If the beneficiary has entrusted anything to the fiduciary, to
     hold the thing in trust or to execute certain acts in regard
     to or with reference to the entrusted thing, the fiduciary has   F
     to act in confidence and is expected not to disclose the
     thing or information to any third party."

     22. It is manifest that while the expression "fiduciary
capacity" may not be capable of a precise definition, it implies
a relationship that is analogous to the relationship between a        G
trustee and the beneficiaries of the trust. The expression is in
fact wider in its import for it extends to all such situations as
place the parties in positions that are founded on confidence
and trust on the one part and good faith on the other.
                                                                      H
    500     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A      23. In determining whether a relationship is based on trust
  or confidence, relevant to determining whether they stand in a
  fiduciary capacity, the Court shall have to take into consideration
  the factual context in which the question arises for it is only in
  the factual backdrop that the existence or otherwise of a
B fiduciary relationship can be deduced in a given case. Having
  said that, let us turn to the facts of the present case once more
  to determine whether the appellant stood in a fiduciary capacity
  vis-a-vis the plaintiffs-respondents.

          24. The first and foremost of the circumstance relevant to
C the question at hand is the fact that the property in question was
   tenanted by Smt. Stella Martins-mother of the parties before us.
   It is common ground that at the time of her demise she had not
   left behind any Will nor is there any other material to suggest
  that she intended that the tenancy right held by her in the suit
D property should be transferred to the appellant to the exclusion
   of her husband, C.F. Martins or her daughters, respondents in
  this appeal, or both. In the ordinary course, upon the demise
   of the tenant, the tenancy rights should have as a matter of
  course devolved upon her legal heirs that would include the
E husband of the deceased and her children (parties to this
  appeal). Even so, the reason why the property was transferred
  in the name of the appellant was the fact that the Corporation
  desired such transfer to be made in the name of one individual
  rather than several individuals who may have succeeded to the
F tenancy rights. A specific averment to that effect was made
  by plaintiffs-respondents in para 7 of the plaint which was not
  disputed by the appellant in the written statement filed by him.
  It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that transfer of rights in
  favour of the appellant was not because the others had
G abandoned their rights but because the Corporation required
  the transfer to be in favour of individual presumably to avoid
  procedural complications in enforcing rights and duties qua in
  property at a later stage. It is on that touchstone equally
  reasonable to assume that the other legal representatives of
H the deceased-tenant neither gave up their tenancy rights in the
    SRI MARCEL MARTINS v. M. PRINTER & ORS.                   501
                [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
 property nor did they give up ~he benefits that would flow to them   A
as legal heirs of the deceased tenant consequent upon the
decision of the Corporation to sell the property to the occupants.
That conclusion gets strengthened by the fact that the parties
had made contributions towards the sale consideration paid for
the acquisition of the suit property which they would not have        B
done if the intention was to concede the property in favour of
the appellant. Superadded to the above is the fact that the
parties were closely related to each other which too lends
considerable support to the case of the plaintiffs that the
defendant-appellant held the tenancy rights and the ostensible        c
title to the suit property in a fiduciary capacity vis-a-vis his
siblings who had by reason of their contribution and the
contribution made by their father continued to evince interest
in the property and its ownership. Reposing confidence and
faith in the appellant was in the facts and circumstances of the
                                                                      0
case not unusual or unnatural especially when possession over
the suit property continued to be enjoyed by the plaintiffs who
would in law and on a parity of reasoning be deemed to be
holding the same for the benefit of the appellant as much as
the appellant was holding the title to the property for the benefit   E
of the plaintiffs.

     25. The cumulative effect of the above circumstances when
seen in the light of the substantial amount paid by late Shri C.F.
Martins, the father of the parties, thus puts the appellant in a
fiduciary capacity vis-a-vis the said four persons. Such being        F
the case the transaction is completely saved from the mischief
of Section 4 of the Act by reason of the same falling under Sub-
section 3(b) of Section 4. The suit filed by the respondents was
not, therefore, barred by the Act as contended by the learned
counsel for the appellant. The view taken by the High Court to        G
that effect is affirmed though for slightly different reasons.

     26. We may while parting say that we have not been
impressed by the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant
that the plea of a fiduciary relationship existing between the        H
    502      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A parties and saving the suit from the mischief of Section 4 of
  the Act, was not available to the respondents, as the same had
  not been raised before the Courts below. The question whether
  the suit was hit by Section 4 of the Act was argued before the
  High Court and found against the appellant. The plea was not,
B therefore, new nor did it spring a surprise upon the appellant,
  especially when it was the appellant who was relying upon
  Section 4 of the Act and the respondents were simply
  defending the maintainability of their suit. That apart no
  question of fact beyond what has been found by the High Court
C was or is essential for answering the plea raised by the
  appellant nor is there any failure of justice to call for our
  interference at this stage.

         27. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed
    but in the circumstances without any orders as to cost~.
D
    B.B.B.                                      Appeal dismissed.