Back
1917 Supreme(SC) 1
Privy Council
Sir Lawrence Jenkins, Sumner , Justice Lords Parker of Waddington , JJ.
Moti Lal and others -Appellant
Versus
Kundan Lal and another -Resopndent
Decided On : 23-01-1917
Neville, Barrow Rogers , E. Dalgado, B. Dube, J.K. Roy, J.M. Parikh , DeGruyther
In benami transaction disputes, the failure of a party in possession of relevant records to produce them creates a presumption that the records are unfavorable to them, which can corroborate oral testimony even if such testimony appears improbable to an appellate court.
Headnote:(A) Benami Transactions - Burden of Proof - Evidence - Presumption from non-production of documents - In a suit for proprietary possession where a conveyance is produced showing purchase in the name of a family member, the burden shifts to the party claiming the transaction was benami to prove the same - Where a party in possession of family account books fails to produce them or account for their absence, a presumption arises that the contents of such books were unfavorable to that party and supportive of the opposing claim.
(B) Appreciation of Evidence - Oral Testimony vs. Improbability - A factual account that may appear improbable or lacking in external support on its face may still be accepted by a trial court if it is consistent with human nature and the practices of the family involved, and is corroborated by the conduct of the parties.
(C) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope of Review - An appellate court is not to substitute its own view for that of the trial court unless the trial court misdirected itself as to the onus of proof, misjudged the weight of evidence, or wrongly accredited witnesses to the extent of perversity.
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sued for proprietary possession of a share in a property, claiming it as undivided joint family property. They produced a conveyance showing the property was purchased in the name of a family member acting as a guardian for a minor. The defendant claimed the purchase was a benami transaction for the benefit of his wife, funded by his father-in-law. The trial court believed the defendant's oral testimony and ruled in his favor. The High Court reversed this decision, holding the defendant's story to be improbable and absurd.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs, who had possession of the family archives, failed to produce account books for the period immediately following the property's acquisition. This failure created a presumption that the books supported the defendant's case. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiffs had failed to claim this specific property in a previous suit for other lands, which was inconsistent with the claim that the property was joint family property.
Issues: Whether the trial judge was justified in accepting the defendant's oral testimony despite its perceived improbability, and whether the non-production of relevant account books by the plaintiffs created an adverse presumption.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-production of documents by a party who has the means to produce them leads to a presumption that the evidence is unfavorable to them. When this presumption is coupled with the conduct of the parties and the fact that the testimony is not inconsistent with family practices, the trial court's finding of fact is sustainable and should not be overturned by an appellate court simply because the story seems improbable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
- benami transactions
- joint hindu family property
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- burden of proof
- adverse presumptions
- weight of evidence
-
evidence
Lord Sumner:-
In this case the plaintiffs sued to recover proprietary possession with mesne profits of a 12-anna share in Mouza Hansi Mau, in the district of Cawnpore. They are members of a joint Hindu family, the Tewaris, governed by Mitakshara law, and claim this mouza as part of their undivided property. The circumstances are such that the plaintiffs' right, if any, has not been barred by adverse possession and lapse of time. It is convenient to speak of one defendant, Suraj Kunwar though there are others, his vendees. The property is small; it seems to yield 500 rupees per annum, but it has been fought for, at prodigious length and cost.
In the first instance the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs, but they produced a conveyance, dated the 3rd August 1863, under which the property in question was conveyed on sale to Musammat Babbo Kunwar, guardian of her son Suraj Parshad, then a minor, both being members of the Tewari family. There was also evidence that the purchase consideration was provided out of joint funds. The rights of Suraj Parshad, have now descended to the plaintiffs, and it is not contended that Musammat Babbo Kunwar took any interest for herself. The defendant produced no conveyance in his own favour, but claimed that the purchase of 1863 was in truth a benami transaction, for the separate benefit of his wife, to whose rights he succeeded when she died in 1871. Thus the burden of proof passed to the defendant very early in the case.
His story was this. At the age of 8 or 9 years he was married to his wife, Musammat Sheorani Kunwar, who was about 3 years older. His "elders consented to this marriage from avaricious motives," and so he went to live thenceforward in his wife's father's house. Basti Ram, his father-in-law, died in 1860. In his later years he had lived a disreputable and extravagant life, and, as he neared his end, he was minded and entitled to make reasonable provision for his daughter out of family funds. The family wealth would pass to her brother, Suraj Parshad, and the family into which she had married, though "Kanaujia Brahmans of a superior grade," were poor. Suraj Kunwar testified that he recollected how Basti Ram, less than three months before he died, on the same day that he performed "gausat-dan" gave to Musammat Sheorani in his presence gold mohurs to the value of 10,000 Rupees saying to his wife, Musammat Babbo Kunwar, "You can purchase some village worth 10,000 Rupees for our daughter." Suraj Kunwar was then a little over 13. He also called as a witness a friend, who, as a boy of 10, and an inmate of the household, remembered, or said that he remembered, this scene. What might well impress the husband of 13 was a more dubious matter in the recollection of his friend of 10.
Mouza Hansi Man then belonged to one Ghazi Ram as his zamindari property. It was already in mortgage to Musammat Babbo Kunwar and two other ladies of the Tewari family, and 6000 Rupees out of the 10,000 Rupees were invested upon a mortgage of it, partly by discharging the amount due on the old mortgage, partly by fresh advances. The new mortgages were dated 1861 and 1862 and were in the names of Musammat Babbo Kunwar and her minor son, Suraj Parshad. The disappearance of the names of the other two ladies is used as an argument for saying that the transaction in question was not a joint family transaction. On the other hand, the fact that Musammat Babbo Kunwar was party to these instruments as guardian of Suraj Parshad certainly points strongly the other way. Finally, on the 3rd August, 1863, the property was purchased, also in her name, for 7,660 Rupees, the consideration being satisfied by discharging the principal and interest due on the prior mortgages. Musammat Babbo Kunwar's name according to Suraj Kunwar was inserted instead of her own at Musammat Sheorani's request. It was a benami transaction. Admittedly, until Musammat Babbo Kunwar died in 1890, ten years after her son. Suraj Parshad, the property was regis
