Case Name: S. N. Kabir v Mrs. Fatema Begum and others.(:3 SCOB [2015] AD 16) Topics: Benami transaction

1. BISMILLAHIR RAHMANIR RAHIM
WELCOME TO MY
PRESENTATION

2. • About me:
Fazle Ruhani
ID No. — 052
LL.B. ( Honors) 2nd year,
Department of law,
University Of Dhaka.

3. GRATITUDE TO—
Mohammad Towhidul Islam
PhD ( Macquarie, Sydney)
Professor, Department of law,
University of Dhaka.

4. PRESENTATION TOPICS :
A Case on Land Law:
★S. N. Kabir v Mrs.
Fatema Begum and
others. 3 SCOB [2015]
AD 16

5. THE PURPOSE FOR CHOOSING THIS CASE:
Benami transaction — white-collar Crime
A purview of Constitutional law
Definition of immovable property

6. FACT :
★ The plaintiff instituted a Title suit for
declaration that he is the owner of the suit
property and that the defendant-wife is his
benamdar and is not the owner there of.
★ The land was in urban area.

7. ISSUES:
1. Whether the benami transaction is prohibited in our existing law.
2. Whether section 5 of the Land Reforms Ordinance,1984 is
relatingto the non Agricultural -Urban land.
3. Whether preamble of a Statue plays a role in constitutinga
statue.
4. Whether immoveable property incorporates both agricultural
and non agricultural land or not.

8. RULE OF LAWS:
Statutory provisions :
1. section 5 of the Land Reforms Ordinance,1984.
Case laws:
1..Anwar Hossain Chowdhury Vs. The Government of Bangladesh, 41
DLR
(AD)165
2. Sreemoti Indira Gandhi Vs.Rajnarain reported in AIR 1975
(SC)2299

9. APPLICATION OF THE LAWS:
Issue-1:
Benami transactions which have been in vogue in the Indian Sub-Continentfor
centuries denote a transaction which is done by a person without using his own
name, but in the name of another.
This old age practice was given a go-by by section 5 of the Land Reforms
Ordinance,1984.
“No person shall purchase any immovable property for his own benefit in the
name of another person.” ( 5(1))

10. APPLICATION OF THE LAW :
Issue-02:
Before promulgation of this Ordinance, the benami transactions
were prevalent both in rural, urban or municipal areas. It was the
intention of the legislative authority that the system, if prohibited,
would be prohibited both in rural and urban or municipal areas.
Though most of the provisions of the Ordinance relate to rural areas,
that will not alter the meaning of the provisions of section 5 which
cannot be restricted to rural areas only.

11. ARGUMENT :
Plaintiff :
1. The provisions of the entire Ordinance are relating to agricultural
and cultivable land. ( preamble of the Land Reform Ordinance, 1984)
2. The Land Reforms Ordinance,1984 has been promulgated with the object to
reform the land relating to land tenures, land holding and transfer with a view
to maximizing production and ensuring a better relationship between land
owners and bargaders.

12. ARGUMENT :
Defendant:
1.This section must be read in conjunction with sub-section (1) of section
1 of the Ordinance, which provides that this Ordinance may be called
the “Land Reforms Ordinance.
2. There is no scope for reading the words ‘rural area’ in section 5 of the
Ordinance.

13. APPLICATION OF THE LAWS:
Issue-03:
The preamble cannot control the meaning and expression when the meaning of
the expression is clear and unambiguous. The aid of the preamble can be taken
if the meanings of the words to be interpreted are not clear and ambiguous.
—*Anwar Hossain Chowdhury Vs. The Government of Bangladesh, 41 DLR
(AD)165*Sreemoti Indira Gandhi Vs.Rajnarain reported in AIR 1975 (SC)2299
The language of section 5 of the Ordinance is plain and unambiguous and it is
remarkable by itself. So, the preamble can not control the expression of the
section -05 of the said Ordinance.

14. APPLICATION OF THE LAWS:
Issue-04:
In light of issues-2&3, Therefore, the words ‘immoveable property’
occurring in section 5 of the Ordinance include both agricultural and
non-agricultural properties. There is no scope for encroaching upon
the domain of legislature by importing the words ‘rural area’ in
section 5 and addition of such words will amount to legislation by
the judiciary which is not at all permissible.

15. JUDGMENT
The plea of Petitioner is not granted.

16. CONCLUSION :
The ground behind to prohibitthe benami
transaction is
Because of benami transactions, multifarious litigations crop
up across the country.
A persons having the possession of black money take
advantage of benami transactions by purchasing property
in the names of their nearest relatives

17. Benami transactions increase corruption in the society.
It is like a Blue Print.