Back
2007(5) Supreme 347
Supreme Court of INdia
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ.
V. Shankaranarayana Rao (D) by Lrs. & Ors. – Appellants
versus
Leelavathy (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. – Respondents
Appeal (civil) 7117 of 2000
Decided on : 11-05-2007
(1980) 3 scc 72, 2007(6) Scale 398 Relied upon.
Benami Transaction – Determination of question as whether a transaction is benani one or not depends upon a larger number of factors - Principle on basis whereof determination of question as to whether a transaction is a benami one or not depends upon a large number of factors - Burden of showing that a transfer is a benami transaction lies on person who asserts that it is such a transaction - If it is proved that purchase money came from a person other than the person in whose favour the property is transferred, purchase is prima facie assumed to be for the benefit of the person who supplied purchase money, unless there is evidence to contrary-True character of transaction is governed by intention of the person who has contributed the purchase money-Question as to what his intention was has to be decided on basis of surrounding circumstances, relationship of the parties, motives governing their action in bringing about the transaction and their subsequent conduct, etc.(Para 11)
Facts of the case :
A Suit for partition was filed herein in the instant case by predecessor in interest of Respondent. Suit properties belonged to one “G” who died leaving behind three sons and a daughter. Suit for partition was dismissed by Trial judge except household articles holding that although properties were purchased with money of “G” same having been done for benefit of his sons and or by way of a family arrangement, were not benami in character. On Appeal, however High Court held that although properties were in name of original defendants, transactions in question were benami in nature and that plaintiff Respondent had inherited 1\4th share therein.
Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court:
The Court held that Principle on basis whereof determination of question as to whether a transaction is benami one or not depends upon a large number of factors. Role and or motive on part of person who had advanced amount of consideration plays an important role in determination of nature of transaction. Failure on part of High Court to consider question from said angle. High Court while pronouncing impugned judgment not considered effect and purport of requisite ingredients for arriving at a decision as to whether transaction in question is benami or not. Since High Court not dealt with question thoroughly and failed to take into consideration, totality of circumstances. Hence impugned judgment set aside and matter remitted back to High Court for consideration of matter afresh.
Result: Appeal allowed.
judgment
S.B. SINHA, J. —
1.Defendants in the suit are appellants before us. Smt. Leelavathi, predecessor in interest of the present respondents filed a suit for partition. The properties in the suit belonged to one G. Venkata Rao. He died on or about 18.10.1974 leaving behind three sons, V. Shankaranarayana Rao, V. Sathya Murthy and V. Surendranath and a daughter Smt. Leelavathi.
2.Wife of Shri G. Venkata Rao, Smt. Sharada Bai pre-deceased him. V. Shankaranarayana Rao died on or about 24.12.1995 i.e during the pendency of the appeal. Mr. V. Sathya Murthy died on or about 10.10.1999 leaving behind a son Srinivasa. V. Surendranath was the defendant No. 3 (appellant). Plaintiff Leelavathi also died during the pendency of the appeal leaving the respondents herein as her heirs and legal representatives. Leelavathi filed a suit on or about 24.3.1976 which was registered as O.S. No. 43 of 1976 for partition of the suit properties claiming 1/4th share in the properties of the said G. Venkata Rao.
3.Defendants/Appellants denied and disputed that G. Venkata Rao had purchased any property in their names alleging that schedule Item No.1(a) is the personal property of the third defendant, whereas item Nos.1(b) and 1(c) thereof belong to the second defendant. It was contended that the properties standing in their names are exclusively owned by them and even three fixed deposits were their own personal properties. It was averred that a joint saving bank account in the Syndicate Bank, Bangalore was being operated in the joint names of the deceased Venkata Rao and the defendant No.2 and only a small amount had been lying therein. As regards item No. (3), it was alleged that no debt was due or payable to the deceased. It was furthermore contended that he had left no jewellery. In regard to the household articles which were described in items 10, 12, 19, 20, 21 and 22, of the plaint schedule the valuation whereof was assessed also at Rs. 400, were, however said to be available for partition.
4.The learned Trial Judge framed a large number of issues, some of which are as under :
“1.Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule immovable and movable properties as described in schedule-I to V are the self acquired properties of her father ?
2.Whether the suit schedule-I(a) vacant site bearing No. 32/1, Aga Abbas Ali Road, Civil Station, Bangalore, is the self acquired property of the 3rd defendant.
3.Whether the suit schedule-I(b) vacant site bearing No. 32/1, Aga Abbas Ali Road, Civil Station, Bangalore, is the self acquired property of the 2nd defendant.
4.Whether the suit schedule-I (C) property is the self acquired property of the first defendant.
5.Whether defendants prove that the suit schedule-II Bank Deposits are the personal properties of each of the defendants?
6.Whether the defendants prove that there were furniture mentioned as item 10, 12, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the suit schedule-V in page-5 of the plaint, hardly worth Rs. 400/- in premises No. 138/A, (New No. 6) Armstrong Road, Civil Station, Bangalore ? “
5.Whereas issue No.1 was answered in the negative, issues Nos. 2 to 6 were answered in the affirmative. The learned Trial Judge opined that although the properties were purchased with the money of G. Venkata Rao, the same having been done for the benefit of his sons and/or by way of a family arrangement, were not in benami in character.
6.Except the household articles, schedule-I to V however, the suit for partition was dismissed.
7.On an appeal having been preferred by the plaintiff, the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment dated 26.2.1999 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court holding that although the properties were in the name of the original defendants, the transactions, in question, were benami in nature and in that view of the matter, the plaintiff had inherited 1/4th share therein.
8.Mr. G.V. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal would s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
