AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 166 wordsWe do not think that this is a suit against the auction purchaser on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of the plaintiff within the
meaning of Section 66, Civil Procedure Code. The finding is that the defendant agreed that the property should be purchased in the name of the
defendant and that one half of it should be conveyed by the defendant to the plaintiff after the sale certificate had been obtained. This in our opinion
is not a benami transaction at all. The mere fact that the plaintiff alleges in the plaint that the auction-purchaser was a benamidar for him has not in
our opinion the effect of debarring the plaintiff u/s 66, CPC from maintaining his suit for specific performance of an agreement by the auction
purchaser subsequent to the purchase to convey the property to the plaintiff. Such an agreement is not inconsistent with auction-purchaser''s own
title, but rather the reverse. We answer the question in the negative.