B. J. HEGDE, J. ( 1 ) THIS regular second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 3-10-1980 passed in r. a. No. 82/1980 on the file of the civil judge, tarikere, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1979 in O. S. No. 6/1977 on the file of the munsiff, tarikere. ( 2 ) THE appellant-plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 6/1977 on the file of the munsiff, tarikere, for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the defendants. The suit was decreed as prayed for by the learned munsiff by his judgment dated 30-10-1979. The respondent, who was defendant-1 before the trial court, preferred an appeal before the civil judge, tarikere, in r. a, No. 82/1980. The learned civil judge allowed the appeal by his judgment dated 3-10-1980. The appellant (plaintiff) has challenged this judgment in this second appeal. ( 3 ) THIS appeal can be disposed of on the consideration of the effect of benamitran sactions (prohibition) Act, 1988 on the facts of the case. ( 4 ) THE appellant-plaintiff filed the suit against the first defendant alleging that her father one sannaboranna had purchased S. No. 100/1 of haleyur village, tarikere taluk, benami in the name of the respondent out of his own funds by a sale deed dated 6-8-1962 and that, thereafter, sannaboranna gave 14 guntas of land for the maintenance of the appellant on 27-2-1963. The case of the appellant, therefore, is that her father sannaboranna was the real owner of the suit property and that she was entitled to 14 guntas of land which was made over to her for her maintenance under the document dated 27-2-1963. The appellant cannot have any right if the sale deed dated 6-8-1962 cannot be relied upon under law. The appellant also cannot succeed if the court is not in a position to accept her plea of benami. The appellant cannot have any right if the sale deed dated 6-8-1962 cannot be relied upon under law. The appellant also cannot succeed if the court is not in a position to accept her plea of benami. ( 5 ) IN Mithilesh Kumari and another v Prem Behari Khare, AIR 1989 SC 1247 , it has been laid down that where a suit filed by the real owner for declaration that certain property is held by the defendant as benami and that the plaintiff is the real owner was decreed by the lower courts but an appeal by special leave against the same was pending before the Supreme Court on the date of the commencement of the Act, the appellate court is competent to take into account legislative changes since the decision under appeal was given and its powers are not confined only to sec whether the lower court's decision was correct according to law as it stood at the time when its decision was given. It is further laid down that once the decree of the high court has been appealed against, the matter became sub judice again and thereafter the Supreme Court had seisin of the whole case. The Supreme Court held that in view of the Provisions of the Act, the plaintiffs suit or action could not be decreed under law. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, the appellant cannot get the relief she sought for, unless her contention of benami is accepted. Since the law nullifies the claim based on benami and applies to proceedings pending on the day of the commencement of the Act, irrespective of the time of benami transaction, she cannot succeed. ( 7 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 4 of the benami transactions (prohibition) Act, 1988, prohibits a suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, by or on behalf of a person claiming to be real owner of such property. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said act prohibits any defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person in any suit filed by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. This Section, however, provides for two exceptions and they arc: (a) where the person in whose name the property is held is coparcener in a hindu undivided family and the property is held for the benefit of the coparceners in the family; or (b) where the person in whose name the property is held is a trustee or other person standing in a fiduciary capacity, and the property is held for the benefit of another person for whom he is a trustee or towards whom he slands in such capacity. The case of the appellant does fall within these exceptions. ( 8 ) HENCE, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .