The ratio of the judgment primarily revolves around the principles for determining whether a transaction is benami or not. The court emphasizes that the core issue is the intention of the parties involved, which must be inferred from the totality of the surrounding circumstances, including the relationship between the parties, the source of funds, the conduct of the parties after the transaction, and the nature of possession and title. It underscores that the burden of proof lies on the person alleging the transaction to be benami. The court also highlights that the presumption that the apparent state of affairs reflects the true ownership can be rebutted only through cogent evidence, and that the intention of the person providing the funds is a significant factor. Furthermore, the judgment clarifies that the intention behind the transaction, the surrounding circumstances at the time, and subsequent conduct are crucial in ascertaining whether a property held in a name is benami or not. The decision stresses that no single factor is determinative, but a combination of factors must be considered to arrive at the conclusion, and that the transaction's character cannot be solely inferred from the manner of registration or mutation of names.