Supreme Court ने बेनामी प्रॉपर्टी लेनदेन को अमान्य घोषित किया – कोई फिड्यूशियरी छूट नहीं

<h2>Overview</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — The apex judicial body in India that interprets the Constitution and laws; its judgments shape legal and policy frameworks (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> on <strong>8 May 2026</strong> ruled that a property bought through a benami arrangement cannot be protected by a <span class="key-term" data-definition="Will (testamentary document) — A legal instrument by which a person disposes of his/her property after death; cannot be used to evade statutory prohibitions (GS2: Polity)">Will</span> or by claiming a fiduciary relationship. The judgment clarifies that transactions covered by the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 — A law prohibiting property held in the name of another person (benami) to curb black money and tax evasion; includes provisions for attachment and confiscation (GS3: Economy, GS2: Polity)">Benami Property Transactions Act</span> (BPTA) are liable for attachment and confiscation, irrespective of testamentary documents.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The Court held that funds transferred under a commercial <span class="key-term" data-definition="MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) — A non‑binding agreement outlining the terms of a commercial relationship; here it indicated a contract, not a fiduciary trust (GS2: Polity)">MoU</span> do not create a <span class="key-term" data-definition="fiduciary duty — A legal relationship where one party must act in the best interest of another, without personal gain; relevant for exemptions under the Benami Act (GS2: Polity)">fiduciary duty</span> that could exempt the transaction.</li> <li>The plaintiff’s claim of ownership based on a registered <span class="key-term" data-definition="Will (testamentary document) — A legal instrument by which a person disposes of his/her property after death; cannot be used to evade statutory prohibitions (GS2: Polity)">Will</span> was rejected as a device to mask benami ownership.</li> <li>The bench dismissed the defence that the property was held by the deceased as a trustee for the plaintiff, emphasizing that an employer‑employee relationship is not a recognised fiduciary category under the Act.</li> <li>Under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 27, Benami Act — Provision empowering the government to confiscate benami properties after a judicial declaration (GS3: Economy)">Section 27</span>, the properties were ordered to be confiscated and handed over to the Central Government.</li> <li>The Court directed the Government to appoint an Administrator and take over the properties within eight weeks, bypassing the need for adjudication by a Benami Authority.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>• The disputed properties were purchased in the name of the late <strong>K. Raghunath</strong>, who was the ostensible owner. The funds were supplied by the plaintiff under a commercial contract.</p> <p>• The plaintiff