JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the private opposite parties and learned Addl. Standing Counsel. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioners assail the order passed by the learned Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur (opposite party no.1) in Revision Case No. 368 of 1998 dated 26.02.2000, whereby the learned Commissioner allowed the revision application filed by the private opposite party nos. 3 to 6 and directed that L.R. Khata No. 911, Plot No. 105/3049 and 1505 measuring area Ac. 0.050 and Ac. 1.685 decimals of land of village-Baunsalundi in Rayati Status be recorded in the name of the aforesaid opposite parties. 3. Late Arjuna Gouda had married Mohadei Gouda. Both are dead. Their son is Mohan Gouda (opposite party n.4). Surendra Gouda and Rabi Gouda, opposite party nos. 3 & 6, are sons of Mohan Gouda. After death of Mohadei Gouda, Arjuna Goda married Sulava Gouda (opposite party n.6). It is stated that at the time of marriage, she was gifted with gold ornaments and household articles by her parents. 4. On 07.04.1959, it is submitted that the said Sulava Gouda purchased a piece of land measuring Ac. 1.84 decimals of land pertaining to Sabik Patta No. 8, Survey No. 198/IB, measuring area Ac. 1.06 cents and Survey No. 199, measuring area Ac. 0.78 cents out of Ac. 1.41 cents of the aforesaid village for a lawful consideration of Rs. 2,000/- on the basis of execution of a registered sale deed of the same date bearing no. 1283. It is further borne out from the records that as per Annexure-2, the opposite party no. 6 in order to liquidate her debts sold a portion of land measuring area Ac. 0.90 cents pertaining to Hal Plot No. 1505, area Ac. 0.875 decimals, out of Ac. 1.685 and Hal Plot No. 1505/3049 measuring area Ac. 0.025 decimal out of Ac. 0.050 in favour of the petitioner late Jami Kameswar Prusty as per Annexure-2 it is contended that Late Jami Kameswar Prusty purchased the land in question from opposite party no. 6 for a lawful consideration of Rs. 54,000/- by execution of a registered deed of sale i.e. Annexure 2. 5. Thereafter, consolidation operation started and land register was prepared and published in the name of opposite party no. 6 showing land particulars. On 22.06.1998, the opposite party nos. 6 for a lawful consideration of Rs. 54,000/- by execution of a registered deed of sale i.e. Annexure 2. 5. Thereafter, consolidation operation started and land register was prepared and published in the name of opposite party no. 6 showing land particulars. On 22.06.1998, the opposite party nos. 3 to 5 and other interfered with the possession of the petitioner with respect to the property purchased by him from opposite party no. 6 for which Jami Kameswar Prusty filed a civil suit for perpetual injunction. On 08.09.1999, the petitioner filed an objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer (ACO), Bhanjnagar to record the land in question as per sale deed dated 10.04.1996, which was registered as Objection Case No. 165/1999. After issuing notice to the opposite party no. 6, the learned ACO allowed the claim vide order dated 08.09.1999. The opposite parties did not filed objection before the ACO on 03.08.1998. On that date, the opposite party nos. 3 to 5 filed a revision application before the opposite party no. 1, which has been registered as Revision Case No. 368/1998. The said application has been allowed and the learned Commissioner has directed to record the entire land in the name of opposite party nos. 3 to 6 jointly. This Court could take note of the important aspects of the case. Firstly, though it has been stated by Sulava Gouda, opposite party no. 1 before the revisional Court that she has sold a portion of land to the deceased petitioner, no notice was issued to him though by then he was alive. The 2nd aspect of the case is that the learned Commissioner has come to the conclusion that sale deed executed in favour of the opposite party no. 6 is in fact a benami transaction. The revision application can be disposed of on any of the aforesaid grounds. However, in order to avoid further litigation and re-consideration by the Commissioner, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner that the land purchased by the husband of Sulava Gouda, which is benami transaction in the name of opposite party no. 6 is illegal in the face of the record. It is not disputed that by the time the revision application was filed, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 has already came into force. 6 is illegal in the face of the record. It is not disputed that by the time the revision application was filed, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 has already came into force. Section 4 of the aforesaid Act provides for prohibition of the right to recover property held benami. It reads as follows: “4. Prohibition of the right to recovery property held benami. –(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 shall 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 of 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; 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 stands in such capacity. “ 6. Thus, no suit, claim or action to enforce right in respect of property held benami against the petitioner in whose name the property is held shall lie by on behalf of any person claiming to be the owner of such property. In this connection, this Court takes note of the reported case of R. Rajagopal Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. Thus, no suit, claim or action to enforce right in respect of property held benami against the petitioner in whose name the property is held shall lie by on behalf of any person claiming to be the owner of such property. In this connection, this Court takes note of the reported case of R. Rajagopal Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and others, vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan (dead) by L.Rs., AIR 1996 SC 238 , wherein the Hon’bnle Supreme Court has held that the prohibition under Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 cannot be applied to a suit, claim or action to enforce right in property held benami against person in whose name such property is held or any other person, if such proceeding is initiated by on behalf of person claiming to be real owner thereof, prior to coming into force of Section 4(1) of the Act. In fact, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case is a larger bench one consisting of three Hon’ble Judges and thereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has overruled the principles annunciated by it in the case of Mithilesh Kumari vs. Prem Behari Khare, AIR 1989 SC 1247 (Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the prohibition is also applicable to pending suits and appeals). However, in this case, the revision application has been filed claiming benami transaction after the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 came into force on 05.09.1988. 7. In the case of Duvuru Mohana Reddy vs. Alluru Nagi Reddy, AIR 1994 SC 1647 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the defence raised by the contesting respondent that the transaction of the sale under the sale deed dated 09.10.1957 executed in favour of the appellant was a benami transaction is prohibited in view of Section 4(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. 8. Though the benami transaction has been prohibited and there is a prohibition to claim a right or defend an action on the plea of benami transaction, there are two exceptions to the same. First one 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 or secondly where the person in whose name the property is held is a trustee or a person standing in fiduciary capacity. First one 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 or secondly where the person in whose name the property is held is a trustee or a person standing in fiduciary capacity. The 2nd proviso is not attracted in this case. Even the 1st proviso of Section 4 of the aforesaid Act will not be applicable in view of the fact that, before passing of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 amending the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 no women were not coparceners in a Hindu undivided family. So, this exception is also not applicable to the present case. 9. In that view of the matter, the order dated 26.02.2000 passed by the learned Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur in Revision Case No. 368/1998, as far as it relates to recording of land in favour of opposite party nos. 3 to 6 is vulnerable. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation is set aside in part the petitioners shall approach the learned Additional Sub-Collector-cum-Consolidation Officer, Berhampur by filing appropriate application to carve out the land purchased by their predecessor and prepare separate consolidation record of rights in their favour. The learned Additional Sub-Collector-cum- Consolidation Officer shall expedite the matter. 10. This order be communicated at the cost of the petitioners. Requisites be filed within thirty working days. 11. The OJC is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. OJC disposed of.