Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 filed Title Suit No. 60 of 1974 against defendants-appellant and others for declaration of title and for further declaration that order dated 6-12-1973, passed by special Officer, Bhagalpur Municipality was null and void and not binding on them, which was decreed holding that plaintiffs got indifisible title and the aforesaid order dated 6-12-1973 was illegal and not binding on them. Defendant No. 1 preferred Title Appeal No. 53 of 1980 against trial Courts decree, which has been dismissed and trial Courts decree was affirmed. 2. By registered sale-deed dated 14-11-1960, Ext. 4/A, the original owner Mostt. Aisa transferred the suit land to defendant No. 1, who was a minor under the guardianship of his father, Md. Allauddin, defendant No. 2. 3. By registered sale-deed dated 3-4-1973, Ext. 4, defendant No. 2 claiming himself to be the real owner and defendant No. 1 as mere benamidar transferred the suit property to the plaintiffs. 4. On the basis of Ext. 4, plaintiffs got their names mutated in Municipal register in place of defendant No. 1. However, on a review petition filed by defendant No. 1 special officer of the municipality on 6-12-1973 set aside the mutation order in favour of plaintiffs, which cast cloud on the plaintiffs title. 5. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit. According to him defendant No. 2 had no money to purchase suit land. Consideration amount for Ext. 4/A was paid by his maternal grand-mother. Sale-deed Ext. 4 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of plaintiffs was, therefore, avoid document and order dated 6-12-1973, passed by special, officer was legal and valid. 6. Defendant No. 2 filed written statement supporting plaintiffs case, but did not contest the suit. 7. While admitting the appeal on 28-7-1986, this Court framed a substantial question of law that though purchase was by the father in the name of his son, could it be treated as benami transaction, unless document Ext. 4/A expressly stated that it was to be so. 8. Both the Courts below, on the basis of evidence on record, concurrently recorded finding of fact that actually entire consideration money for the sale deed Ext. 4/A was paid by Md. Allauddin, Defendant No. 2 from out of his own fund, Exts. 9 and 9/A. 9. It is true that sale-deed Ext. 8. Both the Courts below, on the basis of evidence on record, concurrently recorded finding of fact that actually entire consideration money for the sale deed Ext. 4/A was paid by Md. Allauddin, Defendant No. 2 from out of his own fund, Exts. 9 and 9/A. 9. It is true that sale-deed Ext. 4/A stood in the name of defendant No. 1, who was then a minor under the guardianship of his father, defendant No. 2, but subsequently, Ext. 4 was executed by defendant No. 2 not as guardian of defendant No. 1, but claiming himself to be the real owner, in favour of the plaintiffs and it was proved that in fact suit property was purchased by defendant No. 2 and entire consideration money for Ext. 4/A was paid by him. 10. There is nothing on record to show that defendant No. 2 had intention to purchase suit land and make a gift of it to his minor son, defendant No. 1 on account of love and affection so it cannot even be treated as a gift to defendant No. 1. 11. Mr. Hussain, Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that even if consideration amount was paid by defendant No. 2, it was provided to defendant No. 1 and so defendant No. 1 had availed himself of the help rendered by his father for making up sale consideration and so that would not make sale-deed, Ext. 4/A a benami transaction so as to push it into forbidden area envisaged in section 3(i) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, 12. Recently, in Pawan Kumar Gupta V/s. Rochiram Nagdeo -- , it was held that the words paid or provided in Sec. 2(a) of the Benami Act are disjunctively employed in the clause and each has to be tagged with the word it as consideration. The correct interpretation would be to read as consideration paid or consideration provided. If consideration was paid to the transferor then word provided has no application as for the said sale. Only if the consideration was not paid in regard to a sale transaction, the question of providing the consideration would arise. In some cases of sale, transaction ready payment of consideration might not have been affected and then provision would be made for such consideration. The word provided in Sec. 2(a) cannot be understood in a different sense. Only if the consideration was not paid in regard to a sale transaction, the question of providing the consideration would arise. In some cases of sale, transaction ready payment of consideration might not have been affected and then provision would be made for such consideration. The word provided in Sec. 2(a) cannot be understood in a different sense. Any other interpretation is likely to harm the interest of person involved in genuine transaction e.g. a purchaser of loan might have availed himself of loan facilities from banks to make up purchase money. Could it be said that since the money was provided by bank, it was benami transaction ? 13. Further Sec. 3(i) of the Benami Act contends interdict that no person shall enter into any Benami transaction. The aforesaid prohibition has been judicially pronounced as prospective only in R. Raj Gopal Ready V/s. Padminichandra Shekharan -- . As the Benami Act was passed in the year 1988, it would apply only to those transactions/documents, which were executed subsequently. In the present case, Ext. 4/A was executed on 14-11-1960 and as such the provisions of Benami Act were not applicable to it. 14. I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by two Courts below that actually defendant No. 2 purchased the suit land, vide Ext. 4/A and he was the real owner and so the plaintiffs also acquired title over it through Ext. 4. Defendant No. 1 was only benamidar. 15. There is no merit in this Second Appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.