Important Point
High Court cannot reverse the findings of the lower appellate Court on facts merely on the ground that on facts found by lower appellate Court another view was possible.

Judgment

K. Venkataswami, J.-This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.2.83 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 1845 of 1974. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal by special leave are the following:-

2. The respondent herein filed an Original Suit No. 43 of 1962 in the Court of the Second Civil Judge, Meerut, for partitioning his half share in the property described in the plaint and for rendition of account in respect of the same. The appellant was the defendant in the said suit, now represented by legal representatives as she died pend­ing this appeal. For easy appreciation, we refer the parties as plain­tiff (respondent herein) and defendant (deceased appellant) in this judgment. One Battu Mal was the husband of the defendant. The said Battu Mal purchased the suit property under a Sale Deed dated 9.5.53 for a sum of Rs. 17,000/- in the joint names of himself and the plain­tiff, who was then a minor aged 16 years. The said Battu Mal was murdered in June, 1956. The plaintiff was prosecuted for the murder of said Battu Mal and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and factually when the suit was filed he was in prison. The plaintiff was the son of a cousin of the said Battu Mal. Battu Mal had no issue.

3. In the plaint, though a claim was made that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Battu Mal, the suit was based not on that ground but expressly on the basis that Battu Mal purchased half of the property for him (the plaintiff).

4. The suit was resisted by filing the Written Statement. It was, inter alia, stated in the written Statement that there was no disclo­sure in the plaint as to how the property in dispute belonged to the plaintiff and Battu Mal equally. It was also stated that the said Battu Mal purchased the suit property exclusively for him by paying the entire sale consideration. There was no intention on the part of Battu Mal to share the property or gift half share to the plaintiff when the name of the plaintiff was jointly included in the sale deed.

5. The Trial Court found that the entire sale consideration came from the deceased Battu Mal and the plaintiff did not contribute any money towards the purchase of the suit property. The Trial Court also found that the defendant has discharged the initial burden to show that the sale deed in the joint name of the plaintiff was only a Benami transaction. After finding that the entire sale consideration was advanced by the said Battu Mal, the Trial Court observed that the burden was on the plaintiff to establish that the deceased Battu Mal intended to gift away half of the property purchased by him to the plaintiff. The Trial Court has noticed the fact that the plaintiff, except alleging that half of the suit property belonged to him, had not disclosed how and on what basis such claim was made in the plaint. After discussing the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and after noticing that the defendant had not entered in the witness box but tendered evidence through her brother’s son as D.W. 1, came to the conclusion that the deceased Battu Mal, in fact, intended to pay half of the consideration of the sale deed for the benefit of the plaintiff. Consequently, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for half share in the suit property and for rendition of accounts for past three years before the institution of the suit.

6. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal to the Additional District Judge, Meerut. The learned District Judge, while confirming the finding of the Trial Court that the entire sale consideration was given by the deceased Battu Mal, expressed his inability to endorse the Trial Court’s find­ing that the deceased Battu Mal intended that the property should be of the plaintiff as well. The learned District Judge took note of the fact that in the Plaint it was nowhere averred that Battu Mal intended the purchase of the suit house to be for the benefit of the plaintiff as well. The