Law: Trust Act, 1882

Section: 82

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 17,79

(a) Benami transaction-------"Benami"---Meaning---Word 'Benami' means without a name, nameless or fictitious---Benami transaction is used to denote a transaction which is really done by a person without using his own name but in the name of another.(b) Trusts Act (II of 1882)-------S. 82---Transfer of property---Benami transaction---Proof---Preconditions---Burden can be discharged by adducing evidence of a definite character which can either directly prove fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly raising an inference of such fact---Guiding factors for the court to determine whether a transaction is benami or not stated.Following are the guiding factors for the Court to determine as to whether transaction in question was benami or not:(i) source from which purchase money came;(ii) nature and possession of property, after purchase;(iii) motive, if any, for giving transaction a benami complexion;(iv) position of parties and relationship, if any, between claimant and alleged benamidar;(v) custody of title deeds after transaction; and(vi) conduct of parties concerned in dealing with property after sale.Punjab Province v. Daulat Singh AIR 1942 FC 38 rel.(c) Benami Transactions Prohibition Act (V of 2017)-------S. 56---Benami transaction, prohibition of---Scope---Provisions of benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 2017 are prospective in nature.(d) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Concurrent findings of facts by two courts below was paternal uncle of respondent and both had filed two suits against each other with regard to suit property claimed that he was exclusive owner of suit property and his brother (father of respondent) was just a benamidar---Claim of respondent was that suit property was jointly owned by two brothers and she was entitled to her legal share in suit property after demise of her father---Two courts below concurrently decreed the suit filed by respondent in her favour whereas that of petitioner's was dismissed---Validity in his evidence did not come up with any convincing evidence that he had paid all the allotment charges etc. for suit plot and could not prove that one-third…