[Repealed.]

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Puthanpurayil Venkapalan Sankara Kurup vs Leelavathy Nambiar

   Supreme Court of India 16 Aug 1994 Binding (SC)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When an agent is employed to purchase property on behalf of a principal and purchases the property in the agent's own name using the principal's funds, the agent holds the property as a trustee in fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the principal. The agent's fiduciary duty to protect the principal's interests is not overridden by procedural restrictions under Section 66(1) CPC or benami transaction prohibitions under the 1988 Act. Therefore, the principal is entitled to a declaration of title and recovery of possession despite the property being nominally registered in the agent's name. The exception under Section 66(2) CPC allowing declaration where the purchaser's name was fraudulently inserted without the real purchaser's consent applies to such situations. An agent who acts fraudulently and abuses judicial process by misusing power of attorney to register property in their name is liable for exemplary costs.

   On this section: Section 66(1) (now deleted) prohibited maintainability of suit against court auction purchaser claiming purchase was made on behalf of plaintiff; Court held Section 66(2) creates exception allowing declaration that purchaser's name was inserted fraudulently or without consent of real purchaser. Court applied this exception to allow respondent's suit for declaration despite Section 66(1) bar.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.