Page |1

Page |2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION………………………………………………………………. 3

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………….. 4

RESEARCH QUESTIONS……………………………………………………. 5

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………………………………………... 5

CHAPTERISATION SCHEME…………………………………..................... 5

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………… 6

CHAPTER I ……………………………………………………………………. 8

SECTION 41: PRINCIPLE……………………………………………………… 8

ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS OF S. 41………………………………………….. 10

A. OSTENSIBLE OWNER/ BENAMIDAR

B. EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONSENT OF REAL OWNER
C. TRANSFER FOR CONSIDERATION
D. TRANSFEREE ACTS IN GOOD FAITH
E. REASONABLE ENQUIRY BY TRANSFEREE

CHAPTER II……………………………………………………………………. 17

THE BENAMI TRANSACTION (PROHIBITION) AMENDMENT ACT,2016

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………. 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………… 20
 Page |3

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.A.LL.B (Hons.)Project entitled –
“ Section 41: Transfer By Ostensible Owner ” submitted at Maharashtra National Law
University, Aurangabad is an authentic record of my work carried out under the
supervision of Dr. Tanaya Tarai. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other
degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

Dashampreet Kaur

Roll no. 36

4th Semester
 Page |4

ABSTRACT

According to Black Law’s Dictionary, ‘Ostensible ownership’ means apparent

ownership derived from conduct or words. Theory of ‘ostensible ownership’ estops an
owner of property who clothes another with an apparent title from the latter asserting
his title against an innocent third party who has been induced to deal with the apparent
owner1

Ostensible literally means apparent , outwardly appearing as such , or seeming

.Ostensible owner is a person who is not the real owner of the property, while he
appeared to be the real one.2 He possesses the characteristics of the real owner and is a
replica of him. It may be found that ostensible owner has his name on title deeds and
also possesses the same property but he never intended to own the property. So the
main difference between the real owner and the ostensible owner is that the ostensible
owner does not have the intention to hold or purchase the property. In India ostensible
owner is popularly known as ‘Benamidar’ which literally means a person who is
holding a property ‘without name’.

KEYWORDS: Benami, ostensible ownership ,Transfer of Property , Benamidar,

Transfer by ostensible owner

1
Black’s Law Dictionary 1100 (6th Ed.).
2
Dr. Saxena Poonam Pradhan, Property Law 178 (2d Ed. 2011)
 Page |5

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

1. What is the provisional relevance of S.41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

2. What is the relevance of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment

Act, 2016 with regard to S. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research methodology followed in the paper is descriptive and doctrinal. The
researcher shall analyze various research articles, legislations, case laws, paper,
journals of different authors and news articles of different media communications. The
paper does not include any superfluous fact and researcher has come to decisions in few
points on some assumptions. Referring to all the primary and secondary material
mentioned above, the present study has been compiled and presented to the concerned.

CHAPTERISATION SCHEME

Chapter I – Principle and Essentials of S. 41

Chapter II – The Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act,2016

 Page |6

INTRODUCTION

Property is one of the fundamental requisite in the life of a human being. Great Greek
Philosopher Aristotle argued that “Property should be ... as a general rule, private; for
when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another and they
will make progress, because everyone will be attending to his own business ...” 3 This
principle of Aristotle is at least valid today as it was during his lifetime. So property
and prosperity are inextricably linked. The significance of having well-defined and
emphatically ensured property rights are widely recognized among economists and
policymakers.

The right to property in India was granted as a Fundamental right under Article 31 but
it was abolished by 44th Amendment Act, 1978. It was rather made a constitutional
right under Article 300A which states that. "No person can be deprived of his property
except by authority of law."4

Properties can be conveyed by one person to another for consideration by the way of
possession, contract, title deeds etc. There are various legislations which are enacted to
ensure smooth conveyance of property which can be movable or immovable. In 1882,
Transfer of Property Act was enacted to unify and codify all the customary laws
governing transfer of property. It deals with the transfer of property inter-vivos i.e.
between the living persons only. This act does not govern the transfer of property
through succession, testamentary, inheritance, or by way of gifts etc.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provided definite statutory laws which regulate the
rights of ostensible owner, real owner and the third party related to the transfer. The
author in this research paper has critically analyzed the principle of ostensible owner
and transfer of property by ostensible owner under S.41 of Transfer of Property Act,
1882.

It is a well settled principle of Property law that a person cannot transfer a property to
another person what he does not have or which is greater than what he possesses or
own. However transfer by ostensible ownership is an exception to this general rule.

3
Aristotle & Benjamin Jowett, The Politics Of Aristotle (1885). 4
4
N.M. Const. Art. 300a
 Page |7

ORIGIN OF OSTENSIBLE OWNERSHIP

According to the Law Commission of India there can be four main factors for the
advent of Benami Transaction or holding of an ostensible ownership in India.5

 First of the reasons can be the existence of a joint Hindu Family System , which
might had induced a desire to make secret provisions 6, leading to the practice of
benami.

 Second, can be to defraud the creditors, when K.K. Bhattacharya observes that
its origin is in the dishonest motive of defrauding creditors of their just and
lawful dues .7

 Third, can be the scheme to evade taxes. . It may be to avoid the payment of tax,
to convert black money or to hide the earnings.

 Fourth, according to Pollock, ‘practices of this kind naturally grow up in a state

of society where there is an appreciable risk, from one generation to another, of
hostile conquest or confiscations.’8

The Law Commission, after making a detailed study and examining the views and
opinions of the public, came to the conclusion that such transactions are carried out by
people having funds and wealth from sources not disclosed to the revenue authorities
and with tainted funds to acquire properties in the names of ostensible owners.

It is in this background that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to

Recover Property) Act, 1988 was enacted to come into effect from May 19, 1988 in all
States, except Jammu and Kashmir.

CHAPTER I

5
57th Report Of Law Commission Of India Para 1.7 (1973).
6
West And Buhler, Hindu Law 157, 563 (4th Ed. 1884)
7
7k.K. Bhattacharya, Joint Hindu Family, Tagore Law Lectures 469- 470 (1884-85).
8
Pollock, ‘Law Of Fraud’, Misrepresentation Mistake 83- 84 (1894)
 Page |8

SECTION 41: PRINCIPLE

Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines transfer of property by an

ostensible owner. It states:

41. Transfer by ostensible owner. – Where, with the consent,

express or implied, of the persons interested in immovable property,
a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the
same for consideration, the transfer shall not be voidable on the
ground that the transferor was not authorized to make it:
Provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable care to
ascertain that the transferor has the power to make the transfer,
has acted in good faith.

This section enacts a rule of estoppel as against the real owner. The principle
underlying this section is that if two innocent persons are defrauded or cheated by one,
who, after transferring the property of one without his consent to another, is no longer
present, and the two persons enter into litigation with respect to the property
transferred, then our of these two apparently innocent persons, the one who, by his
conduct or consent enabled the fraud to take place, will suffer.

The law incorporated in Section 41 is based on the rules laid down by the Privy
Council in the leading case of Ramcoomar v. Macqueen9. Briefly, the facts and the law
laid down in this case were as follows:

One Alexander had purchased some landed properties in Calcutta in the name of
Bunnoo Bibee who was his Mistress. Macqueen was one of the two children born to
him by this Mistress (Bunnoo Bibee). The sale-deed was in the name of Bunnoo Bibee
and she also used to manage the properties. Later on during the life of Alexander,
Bunnoo Bibee sold the properties to Ramdhone (father of Ramcoomar). After the death
of Bunnoo Bibee, Macqueen filed a suit against Ramdhone claiming the properties on
the ground that her father Alexander had left a will in her favour and that her father was
the real owner, not Bunnoo Bibee who was merely a benamidar. Ramdhone pleaded
9
AIR. 1963 SC 1917.
 Page |9

that he was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the benami title of the seller
(Bunnoo Bibee). The Calcutta High Court decided in favour of Macqueen whereupon
Ramcoomar (son of Ramdhone who was then substituted in place of his father) went in
appeal to the Privy Council which reversed the judgment of his Calcutta High Court
and decided in favour of Ramcoomar. Allowing the appeal of Ramcoomar, the Privy
Council held that even assuming that Alexander was the real owner and that Bunnoo
Bibee was merely an apparent (ostensible) owner, since Alexander had allowed (i.e.
given implied consent to) Bunnoo Bibee to hold herself out as the real owner, he or his
representatives could not recover upon their secret title unless they could prove that
purchaser had direct or constructive notice of the real title. Delivering its judgment, the
Privy Council made following well-known observations :

“It is a principle of natural equity which must be universally applicable that,

where one man allows another to hold himself out as the owner of an estate and
a third person purchases it for value, from the apparent owner in the belief that
he is real owner, the man who so allows the other to hold himself out shall not
be permitted to recover upon the secret title.”

The section is a statutory application of the law of estoppel, the general principle of
which is thus stated by the House of Lords in Cairncross v Lorimer:10

“If a man, either by words or by conduct, has initiated that he consents to an

act which has been done, and that he will offer no opposition to it, although it
could not have been lawfully done without his consent, and he thereby induces
others to do that from which they might have abstained - he cannot question the
legality of the act he had so sanctioned - to the prejudice of those who have so
given faith to his words or to the fair inference to be drawn from his conduct.”

This was the principle behind S. 41 of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882, which
relates to the principle of Estoppel as has been provided in S. 115 of the Indian
Evidence Act.

ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS OF S. 41

Following conditions are necessary for the applicability of this section:-

10
(1860) 3 Macq 827at p. 829.
 P a g e | 10

i. There is transfer of an Immovable property by ostensible owner with express or

implied consent of the real owner,

ii. The transfer is for consideration

iii. The transferee has acted in good faith, and,

iv. The transferee has exercised reasonable care in finding out the transferor’s
power to make the transfer.11

A. OSTENSIBLE OWNER/ BENAMIDAR

Starting from the first essential, it states that there need to be a transfer of property by
the ostensible owner. Ostensible literally means ‘apparent’ or ‘seeming’. An ostensible
owner is the person who apparently or seemingly appears to be the owner, though in
reality he is not. He is the person having all the indicas of the ownership without being
the real owner.12 A Benamidar is an ostensible owner. The term ‘Ostensible’ excludes
such persons who hold possession of property professedly as agent, guardians or in any
other fiduciary character.

According to Black Laws’ Dictionary :

‘Ostensible ownership’ means apparent ownership derived from conduct or words.

Theory of ‘ostensible ownership’ estops an owner of property who clothes another with
an apparent title from the latter asserting his title against an innocent third party who
has been induced to deal with the apparent owner.13

The Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act of 1988 provides that where a property is
transferred benami (i.e., in the name of another person), the person, in whose name the
property is held, shall become the real owner. The Benamidar represents in fact the real
owner, and is a mere trustee for him. So, if the property is purchased in the name of a
benamidar and the indicia of ownership are placed in his hands, the true owner can only

11
Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh, AIR 2007 SC 1058.
12
Kannashi Vershi v. Ratanshi Nenshi, AIR 1952 Kutch 85.
13
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p. 1100.
 P a g e | 11

get rid of the effect of alienation by showing that it was made without his acquiescence
and that the purchaser took with notice of that fact14.

The Act provides that no suits, action or claim to enforce any right in respect of any
property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or any
other person shall lie by the person claiming to be the real owner of the property. In
other words, the real owner is now after the enforcement of the Act cannot claim the
property from the benamidar by any suit, claim or action. The defence of being the real
owner shall also not be allowed. However, an exception has also been given in the Act
where the above stated rule will not apply:-

1. 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 co-parceners in the
family, or

2. 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.

This means that now an ostensible owner or benamidar has become a real owner except
where he is a coparcener in a Hindu Undivided Family or a trustee standing in a
fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the law laid by Section 41 of the Transfer of Property
Act stands modified except where benamidar is a co-parcener or a trustee standing in a
fiduciary capacity.

In Jayadayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazara,15 the SC observed that whether a person is

ostensible owner is a subjective question depending upon certain facts and
circumstances. Also the following considerations must be taken into account while
deciding whether a person is ostensible owner or not:

(i) Source of the purchase-money i.e. who paid the price?

(ii) Nature of possession after the purchase i.e. who had the possession?

14
Bhugwan v. Upooch 10 WR 185.
15
AIR 1974 SC 171
 P a g e | 12

(iii) Motive for giving benami colour to the transaction i.e. why the property was
purchased in the name of the other person?

(iv) Relationship between the parties i.e. whether the real owner and the
ostensible owner were related to each other or were strangers or friends?

(v) Conduct of the parties in dealing with the property i.e. who used to take care
of and had control over the property?

(vi) Custody of the title deeds.

A. EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONSENT OF REAL OWNER

In the matter of Ladhibai v. Ravji Nagshi,16 it was observed that the express or implied
consent to ostensible ownership means that some blame attaches to the real owner and
that by some fault of his the world begins to believe that another person is the owner of
the property.

The real owner is not responsible, unless the apparent ownership of the transferor has
been permitted or created by him. He creates or permits the appearance of ownership
either by express words of consent, or by acts or conduct which imply consent. It is not
necessary that he should have been influenced by a fraudulent intention, for his liability
rests upon his having put the transferor in a position which enabled him to commit a
fraud. This is on the principle that 'when one of two innocent persons must suffer from
the fraud of a third, he shall suffer who, by his indiscretion, has enabled such third
person to commit the fraud'.17 The same principle was stated in somewhat wider terms
by J Ashurst in Lickbarrow v. Mason,18as:

“wherever one of two innocent persons must suffer by the acts of a third, he
who has enabled such person to occasion the loss must sustain it.”

The consent of the real owner is express if it is given in clear words authorising him to
make the transfer. But such consent must not be brought about by a misapprehension of
16
AIR1950 Kutch 34 at p.35
17
Root v. French, (1835) 13 Wendell 570
18
(1787) 5 Term Rep 683
 P a g e | 13

legal rights. The consent is implied if the real owner knows that the benamidar is
dealing with his property as if it were his own but remains silent or acquisces. The real
owner’s acquiescence (silence) or inaction implies his consent. In Anoda Mohan, v.
Nilphamari19, A purchased a property in the name of his wife B. B's name was entered
in the revenue records and she used to deal with the property. After A's death B
mortgaged the property to C who took it in good faith believing that B had authority to
make the transfer. It was held that since A himself had entered B's name in the revenue
record and since A allowed her to deal with the property, there was an implied consent
of A to hold out B as an ostensible owner authorising him to transfer the property.
Accordingly, the mortgage could not be avoided and the mortgagee was protected
under this section.

In Beniram v. kundan Lal,20 it was held that Silence may be consent only where the real
owner is aware of his rights. Also it is not a mere acquiescence but something more
from which consent may be inferred. It is not a question of fact but of legal inference
from the facts found.

Section 41 does not apply to minors, and a minor’s guardian who transfers the property
of a minor cannot be treated as an ostensible owner with the consent of the minor, who
by, reason of the disability of infancy, cannot give his consent. The doctrine of estoppel
does not apply to minors, and still less will the court hold an infant estopped by the acts
and omissions of others.

21
In Shamsher Chand v. Mehr Chand, it was stated that this section does not apply to
the minors and he appears to be immune from responsibility of his deception.

In Tarabag Khan v. Nanak Chand,22 it was held that Attestation of the document by
real owner does not by itself imply consent but if it is proved that the attestation took
place in circumstances which involved knowledge of or consent to the transaction, it
may be regarded as implied consent.

19
AIR 1921 Cal. 549
20
21 All. 496 (p.c)
21
AIR 1947 Lah. 147
22
(1932) 138 I.C. 263
 P a g e | 14

Further, in Nathubai v. Mulchand,23 it was stated that religious endowments do not fall
under this section as the property is vested in the shrine and no particular person can
give consent, express or implied.

B. TRANSFER FOR CONSIDERATION

The principle protecting the transferee applies only where the transfer is for
consideration. It does not apply to gifts or gratuitous transfers. Therefore, the real
owner is not precluded from denying a gift made by an ostensible owner. However, if
the transfer is with consideration it may be any kind of transfer of property e.g. it may
be sale, exchange, mortgage or lease.

C. TRANSFEREE ACTS IN GOOD FAITH

This essential is based on the principle that “He who seeks equity must do equity”. It is
necessary that transferee acts in good faith, i.e., he has purchased the property in the
honest belief that transferor had power to transfer the property. Good-faith means bona
fide intention.

Where a person purchases property with full knowledge that the transferor is merely an
apparent owner his intention is not bona fide and there is no good- faith on his part.
Principles of equity, on which this section is based, protects the interest only of a bona
fide purchaser. Thus, this section can protect the interest of only such purchaser whose
own conduct is equitable and just. In the absence of good-faith, the Court may presume
collusion between ostensible owner and the purchaser. Accordingly, if the transaction is
a sham (false) one, Section 41 cannot apply because the transferee would then be in the
knowledge of the reality.24 Where the parties live in the same village and have
knowledge of the fact that another person and not the seller was in possession of the
property, the Court may presume absence of good-faith. Similarly, knowledge of any
previous dealings with the property or, knowledge of the defective title of the transferor

23
3. Bom.L.R.535 at p.537
24
Rai Sunil Kumar v. Thakur Singh, AlR 1984 Pat. 80.
 P a g e | 15

deprives the purchaser of the protection under this section. 25 In Gurubaksh Singh v.
Nikka Singh,26 there was a partition of joint family property but there was also some
dispute over the respective shares. While the objection and application for the
correction of mistake was still pending, a part of the property was sold. The Supreme
Court held that since parties lived in the same village and the facts established beyond
reasonable doubt that the purchaser had knowledge of the disputed title of the seller, the
purchaser had no good-faith. The Court observed that in the absence of good-faith on
his part, the purchaser could not claim the benefit of Section 41.

In Mazhar v. Mukhtar,27 it was stated that the usual search is for a period of 12 years
and when there are no circumstances whatever to indicate that the search of the
registration office should be made for a longer period the transferee need not make such
a search.

D. REASONABLE ENQUIRY BY TRANSFEREE

Good-faith or bona fide intention of the transferee is not enough. To attract the
provisions of this section the transferee must also have exercised reasonable care in
ascertaining the title and authority of the transferor. Reasonable care means that care
which a man of ordinary prudence should take while making inquiries regarding the
title of an immovable property. But it is not possible to lay down any general rule
regarding the nature of enquiry to be made by the transferee which may be called as
'reasonable care' for all the cases. The standard of enquiry expected from the transferee
depends upon the facts and surrounding circumstances which may vary according to
the different circumstances of each case.28 However, the enquiry made by the purchaser
must be diligent and not superficial or casual. Some specific circumstance or fact
should be pointed out as a starting point of an enquiry which might have led to some
result.

25
Lala Jagmohan Das v. Lala Indar Prasad, Al. 1929 Oudh. 160
26
AIR 1963 SC 1917
27
AIR 1938 All 64
28
Beyas Singh v. Ram Janam Ahir, AIR 1961 Pat. 16
 P a g e | 16

Revenue records are not records of title. In Nageshar Prasad v. Raja Pateshri,29
A was the real owner of the property. In the revenue records, instead of a name of B
was entered by mistake. B mortgaged the property to C who accepted the mortgage
relying on the revenue register. A denied the transfer on the ground that B was not
authorized to mortgage the property. C claimed the benefit of this section on the ground
that he had taken reasonable care in ascertaining the title of B by inspecting the revenue
records. The Privy Council held that since he had not exercised reasonable care in
enquiring about the authority of B, he cannot get the benefit of this section. The court
observed that if C had made further enquiries, he could have found that B’s name was
entered into the register by mistake and A had already raised an objection against the
wrong entry of B’s name in the register.

29
(1915) 20 Cal.W.N.265,34 I.C. 673 P.C.
 P a g e | 17

CHAPTER II

BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) AMENDMENT ACT,

2016

This Act prohibited the transfer by ostensible owner (Benami Transactions) and made it
illegal with few exceptions. Some of the following provisions of the Act of 1988 have
been reproduced herein below:

 A “Benami Transaction” has been defined under Section 2(9) A (a) of the Act
to mean a transaction in which a person transfers property to another person for
a consideration paid or provided by a third person.

 There is a total prohibition against the real owner asserting his ownership rights
against 30the benami owner . The property owned and held in the name of the
benami owner is liable to be acquired by the government through a competent
authority (appointed under the Act for this purpose) without paying any
compensation whatsoever 31. The burden of proof is on the person who sets up
the benamidar.

EXCEPTIONS UNDER THE ACT

According to, the Section 2(9) A (b) under Benami Transactions (Prohibition)
Amendment Act, 2016, Benami transactions are prohibited but there are certain
exceptions to this rule and they are as following:

(i) The property which is held by a Karta or any other member in a Hindu Undivided
Family and the property held for the benefit of the other coparceners of the family and
the consideration of which is given by the known sources of HUF will not amount to a
Benami transaction.

30
Rai Sunil Kumar v. Thakur Singh, AIR 1984 Pat 80.
31
Thakur Krishna v. Kanhayalal, AIR (1961) All 206.
 P a g e | 18

(ii) The property held by a trustee or other person who, in a fiduciary capacity has the
benefit of another person for whom he has a trustee will also normally not amount to a
Benami transaction. Fiduciary capacity means being in a position of a trustee and being
in a position where the person can be stated to have duties of good faith, trust,
confidence and transparency and one who must exercise a high standard of care in
managing another person’s money or property.

(iii) The prohibition does not apply to an individual who buys property in the name of
his spouse or in the name of any child. But the consideration has to be paid by the
known sources of the individual.

(iv)Where the property of a person is held jointly by brother or sister or lineal

ascendant or descendant and the consideration is paid by the known sources of the
individual.

These exceptions have been governed by Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 as these are excluded in the definition of Benami Transactions under the Section
2(9) A of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.
 P a g e | 19

CONCLUSION

Section 41 of the Act has done an equitable task to safeguard the interest of the third
innocent party involved in the transaction. This section enacts the rule of estoppel as
against the real owner if there is some fault attached to him. And the transaction shall
not be voidable on the ground that the transferor was not authority to make it. And the
true character of the transaction was determined by the intention of the person who
contributed the purchase money. The intention was determined based on the
relationship of the parties, the motive for the transaction, the custody of the title deeds,
the payment of considerations and actual possession of the property in dispute .32

The concept of ostensible ownership is subjected to the provisions of Benami

Transactions Act, 1988 (Now, it is Benami Transactions Amendment Act, 2016). The
legislation of 1988 prohibits all the Benami transactions subject to few exceptions. It
has made such transactions a criminal offense. The Act has prohibited Benami
transactions retrospectively and is intended to curb the menace of tax evasion,
defrauding creditors, escaping from the statutes like ‘Abolition of Zimandari’ etc. And
these exceptions have been governed by Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882.

32
SOLIL PAUL, MULLA, THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 291 (1999)
 P a g e | 20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Gour Hari Singh, Commentary On Transfer Of Property Act (11th Ed. 2009).

 Singh Avtar (Dr.), Textbook On The Transfer Of Property Act (3rd Ed. 2013).

 Sinha R. K., The Transfer Of Property (15th Ed. 2014).

 Dr. Saxena Poonam Pradhan, Property Law 178 (2d Ed. 2011)

 Tripathi, G. P. (Dr.), The Transfer Of Propert Act (17th Ed. 2011).

 V.N. Shukla, Constitution Of India (1950).

 Solil Paul, Mulla, The Transfer Of Property Act (2011)

 The Transfer of Property Act, 1882

 The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988

 The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.