J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant-original defendant, has questioned the legality and validity of the judgement and decree, passed in special civil suit no. 154 of 1972. ( 2 ) THE respondent is the original plaintiff, who initiated the above suit, against the present appellant, for declaration that the suit property is benami, and he is the real owner of the property, and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant, from transferring the suit property. The plaintiff is the father of the original defendant. Thus, the legal battle is between the father and son, in respect of the immovable property. ( 3 ) THE original plaintiff -father inter alia, contended that he had purchased the suit property, in the name of the youngest son, Prabhakar (defendant), out of his provident fund and Gratuity income, and had constructed building thereon. In short, the plaintiff contended that he is the real owner of the suit property and the defendant was a benamidar, who was illegally collecting the rent and enjoying the benefits of the property. The plaintiff had requested his son (defendant) by a letter, that he should not collect the rent from the tenants residing in the property, as he is not the real owner. However, the son did not respond that request affirmatively. Therefore, the father filed the suit. ( 4 ) THE defendant-son appeared and resisted the suit, by filing the written statements, at Exh. 15, and, inter alia, denying that the plaintiff is the real owner of the suit property. He also denied that he is benamidar and plaintiff had purchased the property, out of his funds. Of course, he admitted that he collects the rent from the tenants residing in the suit property. It was also contended that he had purchased the suit property in 1962, and he had constructed the building with the permission of the local authority. ( 5 ) ON appreciation of the facts and circumstances, and the evidence on record, the learned Joint civil Judge (SD), at Baroda, was pleased to decree the suit, on 30/11/1977. Thus, the plaintiff succeeded in getting the declaration, that he is the real owner of the suit property, and the defendant-son is a mere benamidar, who has no legal right or interesting the in the suit property. Thus, the plaintiff succeeded in getting the declaration, that he is the real owner of the suit property, and the defendant-son is a mere benamidar, who has no legal right or interesting the in the suit property. Accordingly, the perpetual injunction was also granted, against the defendant-son. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the original plaintiff-father, has come up with this first appeal, challenging the legality and validity. ( 6 ) THE contention of the original plaintiff, that the suit property was purchased by him, in the name of his son, out of his own funds, appears to be fully justified. The trial court has rightly held that the defendant-son is a benamidar and the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff and he is the real owner thereof. The finding of fact, reached by the trial court, appears to be justified. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, the learned Advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff, has placed reliance on the provisions of the benami transactions act, 1988. he has also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex court rendered in Mithilesh Kumar v. Prem Behari Khare, reported in AIR 1989sc, at pate 1247,and has contended that the suit itself would not be maintainable, in view of the provisions of the said act. This contention is quite legal and valid and is required to be accepted. ( 8 ) IT is true that, when a person purchases some property in the name of another person, for his own benefit ,with no intention to make that other person the beneficiary thereof, that transaction is called the benami one. Benami transaction is also defined in the said act. Section 2 (a) of the act defines that benami transaction means, any transaction in which property is transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by any other person. Section 3 of the act, subject to the exceptions, states that no person shall enter into any benami transaction. ( 9 ) IN this connection, it will be necessary to refer to the provisions of section 4 of the act, which reads as under:1) No 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 should lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. 2) No 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 shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. 3) Nothing in this section shall apply:a) where the person in whose name the property is held is a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family and the property is held for the benefit of the coparceners in the family, orb) whether 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 stands in that capacity. It is very clear from the aforesaid provision that no 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 shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. This, naturally refers to the past transaction, as well. The expression any property held benami, is not limited to any particular time, date or duration. If the court finds that the property is held benami, no suit, claim or legal action to enforce any right, in respect thereof, shall lie, in view of the aforesaid clear or legal action to enforce any right, in respect thereof, shall lie, in view of the aforesaid clear and explicit provision, incorporated in section 4 of the act. Likewise, sub-section 2 of section 4 of the act does not permit the party to raise defences based on any right, in respect of any property held benami whether against the person, in any suit, claim or legal action by and on behalf of a person, claiming to be the real owner of such property. It necessarily means that once the property is held to be benami, the real owner of the property will be disqualified or ineligible to initiate legal action or to raise any defence, in respect of the benami property, against the person, in whose name the property is held, or any other person, for that purpose. It necessarily means that once the property is held to be benami, the real owner of the property will be disqualified or ineligible to initiate legal action or to raise any defence, in respect of the benami property, against the person, in whose name the property is held, or any other person, for that purpose. It therefore, becomes explicit that the provisions of section 4 include the past benami transactions, and take in its sweep retrospectively. It becomes clear from the plain para of the provisions of section 4 of the act, that it inhibits the prohibition of the right to recover the property held benami. In view of the aforesaid provisions of the act, all the real owners are equally affected by the disability provision irrespective of time of creation of the right. The real owners right to recover the property held benami was hitherto protected and the act has resulted in removal of that protection. ( 10 ) IT is true that the act came into operation, during the pendency of the appeal, and the appeal is a continuation of the suit. The statute coming into operation, during the pendency of the appeal, is required to be examined and give effect to by considering it as a subsequent event. The suit filed by the real owner is for declaration that the property is held by the defendant as benami and the plaintiff is the real owner. If the suit is decreed, by the Trial Court, and the same decree is challenged in appeal, which is pending on the date of the commencement of the Act, the Appellate Court is bound to consider the provisions of the Act. It is the duty of the Court, to take into account, the legislative changes since the decision under appeal was given in view of the explicit and unambiguous provisions of Section 4 of the Act, the suit filed by the real owner of the benami property is not maintainable and, therefore, though the commencement of the Act is during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the right to recover the property by the real owner from the benamidar, is barred. The provisions of the said Act are effective for and applicable to all the cases pending before the Courts. The provisions of the said Act are effective for and applicable to all the cases pending before the Courts. Therefore, the suit will not be maintainable and the original plaintiff-respondent herein, is barred from initiating or pursuing legal remedy to recover the property held by his son as benamidar. The ratio of the Apex Court in Mithilesh Kumari vs. Prem Behari Khare (supra), is directly attracted. Consequently, the contention raised in this appeal is required to be accepted, by allowing the appeal. ( 11 ) THE learned advocate for the appellant-original defendant, has also contended that the defendants son is restrained from recovering the rent from the tenants residing in the suit property, by virtue of the impugned judgment and decree, as no interim order was passed during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, it is contended that it should be clarified that it will be open for the original defendant, Keshavrao Madhavrao Agashe, to collect the rent from the tenants. No clarifications, as such, are required as the impugned judgment and decree are set aside, by allowing this appeal. Incidentally, it is mentioned that the original plaintiff-father has died during the pendency of this appeal. ( 12 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree are hereby quashed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, and the relationship between the parties, there shall be no order as to costs. .