SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 421

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, M.R SHAH, JJ.
Smt. P. Leelavathi (D) by Lrs – Appellant
Versus
V. Shankarnarayana Rao (D) by Lrs – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1099 of 2008
Decided on : 09-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Rachitha Herimath, Advocate, Mr. Chinmay Desh Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geet Ahuja, Advocate and Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Trideep Pais, Advocate, Mr. N.K.Verma, Advocate, Ms. Ansha Verma, Advocate, Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
For holding any property as benami, the ingredients of benami transaction have to be established.

Headnote:Benami Transaction (Prohibition of Right to Recover Property) Act, 1988 – Section 2 and 4 – Benami transaction – Tests – Suit properties purchased by separate sale deeds individually by defendants 1 to 3 – Ingredients to establish benami transaction not satisfied – Father claimed to funding the purchases – Intention appearing to be welfare of his sons and nothing more – Held, suit properties are not benami. (Para 10)

       (1980) 3 SCC 72; (2007) 6 SCC 100; (1974) 1 SCC 3; (2004) 7 SCC 233 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that her father Late G. Venkata Rao was an Estate Agent and he was doing money lending business in his name and also in the names of his sons and he was purchasing properties in the names of his sons, though his father was funding those properties. According to the original plaintiff the suit schedule properties were as such joint family properties and/or they were purchased and funded in fact by their late father G. Venkata Rao. Thus she was entitled to 1 /4th share in all the said properties belonging to her father. Therefore, the plaintiff instituted the suit for partition and for recovery of her 1 /4th share in the plaint schedule properties.

       The trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the suit schedule properties are not the self-acquired properties of Late G. Venkata Rao; suit Item Nos. I(a), I(b) and I(c) are the properties of original defendant Nos. 1 to 3; the bank deposits mentioned in Scheduled II of the plaint are the personal properties of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The learned trial Court further observed and held that in respect of moveable properties mentioned in Schedule V as suit Item Nos. 10, 12, 19, 20, 21 and 22, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share and therefore the learned trial Court granted the decree for recovery of 1/4th share to the plaintiff which was hardly worth Rs. 400/- (sic) available in the premises.

       The High Court dismissed the First appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Suit properties are not benami.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT :

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 06.09.2007 in RFA No. 220 of 1991, by which the High Court has dismissed the said First appeal preferred by the original plaintiff Smt. P. Leelavathi (now deceased and represented through her legal heirs) and has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit, the legal heirs of the original plaintiff Smt. P. Leelavathi have preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

That Smt. P. Leelavathi instituted Original Suit No. 1248 of 1980 in the Court of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore against the original defendants - V. Shankaranarayan Rao (now deceased and represented through his legal heirs) and two others for partition and for recovery of 1/4th share of the plaintiff in the plaint scheduled properties. That the original plaintiff Smt. P. Leelavathi and the original defendants are the sister and brothers and the daughter and sons of Late G. Venkata Rao, who died on 08.10.1974.

2.1 It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that her father Late G. Venkata Rao was an Estate Agent and he was doing money lending business in his name and also in the names of his sons and he was purchasing properties in the names of his sons, though his father was funding those properties. According to the plaintiff, at the time of his death, G. Venkata Rao was in possession of a large estate comprising of immoveable properties, bank deposits etc. shown in the plaint schedule. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the suit schedule properties were as such joint family properties and/or they were purchased in fact by their late father G. Venkata Rao and the same was funded by their father. That, it was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the plaintiff was entitled to 1 /4th share in all the said properties belonging to her father. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that as the defendants refused to give her 1/4th share and gave an evasive reply, which prompted the plaintiff to demand in writing her share and for early settlement. That, thereafter she got a notice dated 18.07.1975 issued demanding partition and amicable settlement. But the defendants have failed to settle the matter. Therefore, the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and for recovery of her 1 /4th share in the plaint schedule properties.

3. That the original defendants resisted the suit by filing the written statement. It was the case on behalf of the original defendants that the plaint schedule properties are exclusively owned by the defendants in their individual rights. Item No. 1 of the plaint schedule i.e., premises No. 32/1, Aga Abbas Ali Road is the personal property of defendant No. 3. Item (b) of schedule 1 belongs to defendant No. 2 and Item (c) belongs to defendant No. 1. These properties never belonged to their deceased father G. Venkata Rao and they do not form part of his estate. Coming to Item No. II, the three fixed deposits were the personal properties of each of the defendants. There was a joint saving bank account in the Syndicate Bank, Cantonment Branch in the joint names of the deceased and defendant No. 2. There is a small amount still lying in the said account. At any rate, there is no outstanding of Rs. 10,000/- in the said account. Regarding Item No. III, there were no debts due and payable to the deceased. 939 shares were in the joint names of the deceased and the plaintiff. 840 shares were in the names of the deceased and defendant No. 1. Another 840 shares were in the names of the deceased and defendant No. 2. 949 shares were in the names of the deceased and defendant No. 3. The plaintiff had major share which were purchased by the deceased in the names of himself and the plaintiff. Late G. Venkata Rao was a head clerk atta










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top