Judgment :- Nainar Sundaram, J.: The appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal is the decree-holder and execution proceedings the appellant wanted to proceed against properties standing in name of the respondent, but advancing a case that the real owner of the properties is judgment-debtor Jamal Mohideen Papa, who is none else than the father of the respondent. In substance, the appellant wanted to say that the respondent is only a benamidar for father Jamal Mohideen Papa, the judgment-debtor. The respondent preferred a regarding the properties. The first court dismissed the claim petition, holding that respondent is only a benamidar for the judgment-debtor and that the real owner is only judgment-debtor. The order of the first court is dated 5.8.1983. The matter was taken this court by way of an appeal C.M.A.No.610 of 1983. While the said appeal was pending, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 45 of 1988, hereinafter referred to as the came into effect. One of the questions that relevantly arose for consideration, on urged on behalf of the respondent herein, before the learned single Judge who dealt with appeal C.M.A.No.610 of 1983 was as to whether the decree-holder, the appellant herein, could proceed against the properties on the basis that the respondent held and holds properties only benami for the judgment-debtor and the real owner is only the judgment debtor. The learned single Judge took note of the pronouncement of the highest court in land, after the Act came into force, speaking on the subject which we shall presently to, and also after adverting to the scope, purport and intendment of the Act, held that not possible to countenance the claim of the decree-holder, the appellant herein, that respondent herein is only a benamidar for the judgment-debtor. The learned single Judge has also gone into the factual questions as to whether the judgment-debtor is the real of the properties and the respondent herein is only a benamidar for the judgment and answered them against the appellant herein. As a result, the learned single Judge allowed the and set aside the order of the first court. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment of the learned single Judge. 2. As a result, the learned single Judge allowed the and set aside the order of the first court. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment of the learned single Judge. 2. In Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare, (1989)2 S.C.C. 95 , it has been countenanced that the provisions of the Act are retrospective in operation and they will apply to arising out of suits, claims or actions, since appeals are only continuation of proceedings. The pronouncement of the Supreme Court has been taken note of by one (Nainar Sundaram, J.) in Minor Habib Rahan and others v. Ramu Pandaram, (1990)2 337. That was a case of the application of the law as per the Act, which came into subsequently at the stage of a second appeal. 3. However, what Mr.B.Kumar, learned counsel for the decree-holder, the appellant urges is that Sec.4 brings in only a prohibition with reference to suit, claim or action by behalf of the person claiming to be the real owner and in the present case the decree the appellant herein, is not a person claiming to be the real owner and he cannot also to be prosecuting a suit, claim or action on behalf of a person claiming to be the real namely, judgment-debtor, and hence the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked to the prosecution of the execution proceedings against the properties, treating the judgment debtor as the real owner thereof. This contention has been repelled by the learned Judge, and in our view, rightly also. The very pronouncement of the Supreme Court, to above, has exhaustively assessed the scope, purport and intendment of the Act inspite of that, we will not be in order to construe the set of expressions" on behalf person claiming to be the real owner of such a property" occurring in Sec.4 as excluding its ambit and purview, a decree-holder who has no other case except to say that properties though not standing in the name of the judgment-debtor are only his, so as available for being proceeded against in execution. The decree-holder puts forth a case the judgment-debtor is the real owner of the properties. That is the basis for proceeding execution against the properties. We can only view that as a case on behalf and projecting claim of a person, namely, the judgment-debtor as the real owner of the properties. The decree-holder puts forth a case the judgment-debtor is the real owner of the properties. That is the basis for proceeding execution against the properties. We can only view that as a case on behalf and projecting claim of a person, namely, the judgment-debtor as the real owner of the properties. decree-holder indirectly confers the benefit of ownership on the judgment debtor and to proceed against the properties in discharge of decree-debts of the judgment-debtor to exonerate him therefrom. Mr.B.Kumar, learned counsel for the decree-holder, appellant herein, read some passages from Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes Edition. But, on going through them, we do not find any direct relevancy in them present question. It is significant to note here that the judgment-debtor was not made party to the proceedings and was never called upon to make his say on the question only the voice of the decree-holder, the appellant herein, which spoke and that voice only to say that the real owner is the judgment-debtor and not the respondent herein, whose name the properties stood. The present case, in our view, will certainly come the mischief of Sec.4. On facts, we are not prepared to accept the construction put forth the learned counsel for the appellant on the provisions of Sec.4. 4. Even otherwise, the learned single Judge has elaborately gone into the factual question to whether the findings of the first court that the judgment-debtor is the real owner and the respondent herein could be accepted as tenable. The discussion by the learned Judge of this question is found in paragraph 9 of his judgment, which runs as follows: "That apart, even on the evidence, I am of the view that the findings of the court below the issue of benami are vitiated by perversity of approach and total misdirection relevant legal aspects of the case. The Court below though formulated the requirements of the concept of benami, miserably failed and misdirected itself in analysing the material on record. In my view, the court below erroneously placed the burden upon appellant and proceeded to sustain the pleas of benami since in its view, the appellant not substantiate that he is the real owner and not benamidar. Indisputably, the property stood purchased in the name of the appellant and that as an ostensible and real owner, has also mortgaged the said properties with Tanjore Land Development Bank. Indisputably, the property stood purchased in the name of the appellant and that as an ostensible and real owner, has also mortgaged the said properties with Tanjore Land Development Bank. In the such materials on record, it is rather surprising that the court below tried to draw inferences in surmises and relying upon merely the oral evidence of D.W.1. A reading of the evidence of P.W.1 does not militate against his that he is the real owner and he purchased the property from and out of the funds disposal. Likewise the oral evidence of D.W.I does not contain any clinching evidence relevant and vital aspects and necessary ingredients of the concept of benami and in any way militate against the case of the appellant. The oral evidence of D.W.1 contain any other concrete material to substantiate the plea that the consideration purchase of the property was from and out of the funds of the judgment-debtor. the court below embarked upon a superficial consideration of the oral evidence, but to have rested its conclusion on mere conjectures, surmises and suspicion, which be sufficient in law to deprive the appellant, who is the ostensible purchaser of his interest in the property. The court below appears to have also proceeded on a confusion though it was considering a transaction which is either fictitious or fraudulent, and view went astray from the relevant legal considerations. Except the oral evidence of the respondent has not chosen to cause the production of any documentary evidence support of his case. The oral evidence of D. W. 1 is also not supported by any documentary evidence. In the shapes of cultivation accounts, or extracts from the other village on records in support of the case pleaded by the respondent. Consequently, I am of that the evidence on record are not legally sufficient to justify the finding that the is only a benami in respect of the properties in question and not the real owner. ground also, I am not persuaded to accept the submission of the learned counsel respondent." We fully endorse the reasonings of the learned single Judge and the ultimate rendered by him on the factual question also. 5. The result of our above discussion is that this Letters Patent Appeal does not being entertained for investigating into any question further. Accordingly, this Letters Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.