Suit – Partition – Appellant-original plaintiff claimed 1/4th share in all the scheduled properties of her late father – Plaintiff alleged that defendants-her brothers refused to give her 1/4th share – Plaintiff filed suit for partition – Trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the suit schedule properties were not the self-acquired properties of father of the parties and same were the properties of defendants Nos.1 to 3; the bank deposits mentioned in schedule II were also the personal properties of defendant Nos.1 to 3 – High Court vide judgment & order dated 26.02.1999 set aside the judgment of the trial court and held that though the properties were in the names of the original defendants, the transactions between father and defendants were benami in nature – Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration – Thereafter, on remand, the High Court confirmed the judgment of the trial court and held properties were not benami in nature – Appellant contended that the suit properties acquired in the names of defendant Nos.1 to 3 were benami in nature – On appeal, held: Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that source of money can never be the sole consideration and it is merely one of the relevant considerations, but not determinative in character – In the instant case, the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove that the purchase of the suit properties in the names of defendant Nos.1 to 3 were benami in nature – Plaintiff had failed to establish and prove the intention of the father to purchase the suit properties for and on behalf of the family, which were purchased in the names of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 – Late father of plaintiff had also assisted her and her husband to purchase a residential house – Similarly, the intention of the late father was to give the financial assistance to defendant Nos.1 to 3-sons and helped them in purchase of the properties – The transaction of purchase of the suit properties cannot be said to be benami in nature – Therefore, the plaintiff has no right to claim 1/4thshare in the suit properties – Benami Transactions (Prohibition of Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 – Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Applying the law laid down by Supreme Court in the various decisions to the facts of the case on hand, this Court is of the opinion that the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the purchase of the suit properties – Item Nos. I(a) to I(c) in the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were benami in nature. It is true that, at the time of purchase of the suit properties – Item Nos. I(a) to I(c), some financial assistance was given by their late father. However, as observed by this Court in the various decisions, that cannot be the sole determinative factor/circumstance to hold the transaction as benami in nature. The plaintiff has miserably failed to establish and prove the intention of the father to purchase the suit properties for and on behalf of the family, which were purchased in the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. It is required to be noted that, as such, the plaintiff – daughter has not stepped into the witness box and that the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff has been given by her husband who, as such, can be said to be an outsider, so far as the joint family is concerned. Apart from that, it has come on record that the plaintiff and her husband were maintained by late father of plaintiff. The financial assistance was also given to the plaintiff and her husband to purchase the residential house at Bangalore. Father of plaintiff, therefore, provided a shelter to his daughter and, as observed herein above, also gave the financial assistance to purchase the residential house at Bangalore. It has also come on record that their late father even purchased the share certificates and his daughter-original plaintiff was also given certain number of shares. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, their late father also must have given the financial assistance to defendant Nos. 1 to 3 – sons and helped them in purchase of the properties. Therefore, the intention of their late father to give the financial assistance to purchase the properties in the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be said to be to purchase the properties for himself and/or his family members and, therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, the transactions of purchase of the suit properties – Item Nos. I(a) to I(c) in the names of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be said to be benami in nature. The intention of their late father was to provide the financial assistance for the welfare of his sons and not beyond that. None of the other ingredients to establish the transactions as benami transactions, as held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, are satisfied, except that some financial assistance was provided by their late father. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence on record, the purchase of the suit properties – Item Nos. I(a) to I(c) in the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be said to be benami transactions and, therefore, as rightly observed and held by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court, the plaintiff has no right to claim 1/4th share in the suit properties – Item Nos. I(a) to I(c) which were purchased by the sons in their names by separate sale deeds. [Para 10][923-C-H; 924-A-D]
Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh (2007) 6 SCC 100 : [2007] 5 SCR 946; Jaydayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazra (Mst.) (1974) 1 SCC 3 : [1974] 1 SCR 70; Valliammal v. Subramaniam (2004) 7 SCC 233 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 966 – relied on.
Thakur Bhim Singh v. Thakur Kan Singh (1980) 3 SCC 72: [1980] 2 SCR 628 – referred to.
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.