Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – s.4(3)(a) – Original first plaintiff-Karta of HUF purchased properties in name of minor sons (first and second defendants) – First property-the suit property which was bought in the name of first defendant was later sold by him – Suit filed by Original first plaintiff on behalf of himself, his wife (who later passed away) and two daughters, against his two sons (first and second defendants) and the purchasers of the property, for setting aside of the sale deed and for declaration of title – Plaintiffs urged that they and the first and second defendants, were members of a HUF, and that first defendant was a benami owner who could not have alienated the suit property – Suit dismissed – On appeal, held: One who alleges that a property is benami and is held, nominally, on behalf of the real owner- in cases which form the exception, u/s.4(3)- has to displace the initial burden of proving that fact – Such proof can be through evidence, or cumulatively through circumstances – In the present case, the first plaintiff had proved that the properties were purchased, with his funds, and the sons were minors, with no source of income – The second defendant’s position throughout all the proceedings was that the properties were that of the first plaintiff i.e., he admitted to the suit averments – The plaintiff also proved that he had possession of the property, by adducing positive evidence of tenants, who paid rent to him – In these circumstances, the elements necessary to establish benami ownership within the meaning of s.4 (3) (a) of the 1988 Act, in terms of the judgments in Binapani Paul and Valliammal have been satisfied by the first plaintiff – Conclusions drawn by the trial court and first appellate court are plainly erroneous, given the evidence on record – High Court fell into error in not noticing the correct position in law – Suit decreed fully. Constitution of India – Article 136 – Discretionary nature of jurisdiction – Interference with concurrent findings – Held: It is correct that the Court would rarely interfere with concurrent findings however, the jurisdiction u/Article 136 is wide, and in exceptional cases, interference is called for.
Marcel Martins v. M. Printer (2012) 5 SCC 342,
Collector Singh v. L.M.L. Ltd (2015) 2 SCC 410: [2014]
13 SCR 735, Nizam v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 1 SCC
550 : [2015] 10 SCR 786 Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh (2007) 6 SCC 100 : [2007] 5 SCR 264 ,
Valliammal v. Subramaniam [2004] Supp 1 SCR 966 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.