2004 Supreme(SC) 983

2004(7) Supreme 763
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
Ashok Bhan & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Valliammal (D) by Lrs. -Appellants
versus
Subramaniam and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5142 of 1998
Decided on 31-8-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R. Sundaravaradan, Sr. Advocate, Ramesh N. Keswani and Ramlal Roy, Advocates.
For the Respondents : M.A. Krishna Moorthy and P.V. Yogeswaran, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The source from where the purchase money came and the motive why the property was purchased benami are by far the most important tests for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in reality for the benefit of another.

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963-Sections 6, 13 and 14-Suit for declaration and injunction filed by father against daughters-Claim of original plaintiff over the suit land disputed-Plaintiff s wife being the vendee from auction purchase-She executed a Will and bequeathed suit land in favour of her daughters, defendants-Plaintiff s case that property was purchased in name of his wife as benami on his behalf-Trial Court decreed the suit and held that plaintiff s wife was holding the property benami on behalf of original plaintiff-High Court set aside findings recorded by Courts below and held that plaintiff had failed to prove that he had purchased the property in name of his wife as a benami-Source of money not traceable to plaintiff-Failure of plaintiff, to examine relevant witnesses-Whether judgment of High Court is sustainable-(Yes)-High Court has come to the right conclusion that plaintiff s wife did not hold the property as benami on behalf of her husband.

       Held : There is a presumption in law that the person who purchases the property is the owner of the same. This presumption can be displaced by successfully pleading and proving that the document was taken benami in the name of another person from some reason, and the person whose name appears in the document is not the real owner, but only a benami. Heavy burden lies on the person who pleads that the recorded owner is a benami-holder. (Para 11)

       It is well-established that burden of proving that a particular sale is benami lies on the person who alleges the transaction to be a benami. The essence of a benami transaction is the intention of the party or parties concerned and often, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof. (Para 12)

       The source from where the purchase money came and the motive why the property was purchased benami are by far the most important tests for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in reality for the benefit of another. We would examine the present transaction on the touchstone of the above two indicia. (Para 13)

       In law title to the property vests in the person in whose favour the sale deed has been executed. Therefore Ramayee Ammal was the absolute owner of the property. By a registered will dated 28.1.1974 she bequeathed the suit land to her daughters defendants/respondents. The presumption in favour of Ramayee Ammal could be displaced only if her husband Malaya Gounder, the original plaintiff, was able to prove that there were circumstances which warranted the purchase of the property benami in the name of his wife. The plaintiff, in order to prove that he was the real owner of the property was required to show that there were valid reasons for purchase of the property in the name of his wife and that he had paid the money for the purchase of the land. Plaintiff in his evidence as PW1 admitted that neither his brother nor he himself had any creditors in the year 1933 when the land was purchased by his wife Ramayee Ammal. Therefore, the reason given by him for the purchase of the land in the name of his wife is not plausible. It also appears from his deposition that he had some other pieces of land in another village which were recorded in his name. Names of prospective creditors have not been disclosed. If there were any unsatisfied creditors then they would have proceeded against the plaintiff for the recovery of their money by attachment or sale of the land held by him in other village. Action took place in 1927. Land was purchased by Ramayee Ammal in the year 1933. During these six years no other creditors had come forward to claim any money against him or his uncle for whom the guarantee was given by his brother. Debt, if any, would have become time barred. Even after 1933 no creditor came forward with any claim. Marappa Gounder, brother of the plaintiff died in 1923. The property was sold in execution of the decree in the year 1927 and the sale deed in favour of Ramayee Ammal, the wife of the plaintiff was executed in the year 1933. Apprehension of the plaintiff that some other creditors of Marappa Gounder might proceed against the plaintiff is totally unjustified. The case put up by the plaintiff that he purchased the and in the name of his wife benami does not seem to be plausible. (Para 15)

       It is well settled that intention of the parties is essence of the benami transaction and the money must have been provided by the party invoking the doctrine of benami. The evidence shows clearly that the original plaintiff did not have any justification for purchasing the property in the name of Ramayee Ammal. The reason given by him is not at all acceptable. The source of money is not at all traceable to the plaintiff. No person named in the plaint or anyone else was examined as a witness. The failure of the plaintiff to examine the relevant witnesses completely demolishes his case. (Para 17)