Judgment 1. The present appeal was originally filed by Siri Ram Aggarwal, Vijay Kumar and M/s. Vijay Agencies, Nakodar assailing judgment dated 5-9-1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar by which the appeal filed by them against judgment and decree dated 9-8-1991 rendered by Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Nakodar had been dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal, Siri Ram Aggarwal died and his legal heirs were brought on record as appellants. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Dharam Pal respondent had filed a suit for possession by making a claim that he had purchased two properties situated at Nakodar vide two sale deeds dated 24-4-1959 and 12-6-1959 and, thus, became the owner of the same. He had raised construction on the said properties and in 1964, he proceeded to United Kingdom. At that point of time, he had handed over the possession of these properties to his father, who was living along with his other son Siri Ram Aggarwal. Subsequently, his father also went to England and he died there in 1970. Siri Ram Aggarwal thereafter started business in the said premises under the name and style of Vijay Agencies and had been in possession of the disputed properties ever since. When the respondent asked for the possession of the properties, the appellants refused to do so and this resulted in filing of the civil suit. 3. The appellants denied the factum of purchase of the disputed properties by the respondent. They set up the plea that one old shop was purchased by them vide registered sale deed dated 24-4-1959 in the name of the respondent due to love and affection for him. They further pleaded that the second shop was also purchased by them on 12-6-1959 in the name of the respondent on account of love and affection. According to the appellants, the entire construction was raised by them after demolition of the old structure and, therefore, they were the real and ostensible owner of the disputed properties. The appellants asserted that a huge amount was spent by them on the construction of the shops and they had been depositing local taxes etc. in respect thereof. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 9-8-1991 and the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 5-9-1997. in respect thereof. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 9-8-1991 and the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 5-9-1997. Resultantly, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants. 5. Shri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Courts below had committed an illegality by not appreciating the evidence available on record in a correct perspective. He submitted that the properties in question were owned by the appellants and the respondent was merely a benamidar. He urged that since the respondent had miserably failed to prove the purchase of the properties by him, the suit ought not to have been decreed by the trial Court. He placed reliance on a Single Bench judgment of Delhi High Court reported as 1999 (2) RCR (Civil) 685 : (AIR 1999 Del 281) and submitted that the basic tests for assessing the nature of benami transaction are:- (i) Source from which the purchase money came; (ii) Nature and possession of the property after the purchase; (iii) Motive for giving the transaction a benami colour; (iv) Position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamidar; (v) Custody of the title-deeds after the sale, and (vi) Conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale. He further argued that since the respondent had failed to satisfy the aforementioned tests, he could not have been declared as owner of the disputed properties because it was for him to establish the factum of purchase made by him. 6 Shri Sanjiv Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other, while supporting the impugned judgments and decrees, argued that the properties in dispute had been purchased by the respondent and the appellants had taken advantage of his absence when he had gone to United Kingdom. He submitted that subsequently, the father of the respondent had also gone to United Kingdom and expired there in the year 1970 and it was thereafter that the appellants, with malicious intent, decided to grab the properties. Shri Bansal urged that the appellants were merely licensees on the disputed properties and that they had also tried to amicably settle the matter by offering their property in Chandigarh to the respondent in lieu of the shops in question. Shri Bansal urged that the appellants were merely licensees on the disputed properties and that they had also tried to amicably settle the matter by offering their property in Chandigarh to the respondent in lieu of the shops in question. According to him, since the factum of ownership had been duly established, there was no reason to differ with the findings of the Courts below. 7. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record and feel that the appeal does not deserve to succeed. 8. Siri Ram Aggarwal (since deceased), who had filed the present appeal along with others, was the real brother of the respondent, while Vijay Kumar, now appellant No. 1 is his nephew. Admittedly, the properties were purchased vide two sale deeds which are on record as Exhibits D6 and D7. Both these sale deeds are in the name of the respondent. The appellants have claimed that the properties were benami in the name of the respondent and, therefore, they continued to be the real owners of the same. I am afraid, such a plea is not available to the appellants as after coming into force of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 for short, the Act ), no one can take up this plea. Section 4 of the Act clearly bars any such defence to be taken up against any person claiming a right to such property. The Act has also been made applicable with retrospective effect. 9. Therefore, in view of the specific bar under Section 4 of the Act, the appellants cannot take up the plea of the properties being benami. 10. Another factor which cannot be lost sight of is Exhibit P.W. 3/3 which is a writing executed on 24-1-1987. This writing was signed by Siri Ram Aggarwal and the respondent. In this document, the appellants admitted the ownership of the respondent over the disputed properties and had agreed to transfer some property in Chandigarh in lieu of the shops in question. Siri Ram Aggarwal, during the course of deposition in the trial Court, admitted his signatures on Exhibit P.W. 3/3. Apart from this, Exhibit P.W. 3/3 was written on 24-1-1987 presumably as a consequence of the notice issued by the respondent on 30-8-1986 which is on record as Exhibit P.W. 3. 11. Siri Ram Aggarwal, during the course of deposition in the trial Court, admitted his signatures on Exhibit P.W. 3/3. Apart from this, Exhibit P.W. 3/3 was written on 24-1-1987 presumably as a consequence of the notice issued by the respondent on 30-8-1986 which is on record as Exhibit P.W. 3. 11. There is, thus, no escape from the conclusion that the respondent is owner of the properties and the appellants were permitted to use the same as licensees because the former had gone abroad. It is an admitted case of the parties that the respondent was away to United Kingdom for a number of years. It is also an admitted position that the father of Siri Ram Aggarwal and the respondent had also died in United Kingdom while staying with the latter. In view of all this, it can safely be held that it was only an arrangement by which the appellants were permitted to use the properties in the absence of the respondent when he was away to United Kingdom. 12. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or error of law in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed being without any merit and the impugned judgments and decrees are upheld.