Mr. P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

The plaintiff in the suit is in appeal. The defendant is the daughter of the plaintiff. The mother of the defendant has obtained divorce from the plaintiff and is living separately with the defendant since 2003 at Mumbai. The case of the plaintiff is that on 03/05/1989, when the defendant was less than six months of age, he purchased the plaint A schedule property, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property', as per Ext. A1 sale deed, in the name of the defendant as he believed then that purchasing a property in the name of his newly born child would bring good luck to him and to his family. The vendor of the suit property was none other than the maternal grand mother of the defendant. It is also the case of the plaintiff that since the suit property was not purchased for the benefit of the defendant, he is the real owner of the suit property, though the property stands in the name of the defendant. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property and has been remitting the land tax in respect of the property all along. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that he has improved the suit property by planting coconut saplings, nutmeg, etc. According to the plaintiff, since the document in respect of the suit property stands in the name of the defendant, the suit is necessitated for a declaration of his title over the suit property. The plaintiff also sought in the suit a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

2. The defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement. It was contended by the defendant that her grandmother who owned the suit property wanted to gift the same to her in consideration of her love and affection towards the defendant and the plaintiff who was asked to make the arrangements for the execution of the document, has prepared Ext. A1 document as if it is a sale deed obtained by him in the name of the defendant with ulterior motives. It was also contended by the defendant that the vendor of the document has not received any consideration from the plaintiff for executing Ext. A1 document. According to the defendant, she is therefore the absolute owner of the suit property.

3. The Trial Court found that the suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant for consideration. Despite the said finding, the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court holding that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant for the benefit of the defendant and that therefore she is the absolute owner of the suit property. It was observed by the Trial Court that the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff can only be regarded as the possession of the plaintiff as the natural guardian of the defendant. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. The Appellate Court, on a re-appraisal of the evidence on record, confirmed the decision of the Trial Court. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions against him and hence this second appeal.

4. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law have been framed for decision in the appeal:

(i) Whether the plaintiff/appellant succeeded in rebutting the presumption under Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, to prove that Ext. A1 transaction was not intended for the benefit of the defendant/ minor daughter?

(ii) Whether Ext. A1 document evidence as a gift in favour of the minor daughter by father in the absence of any express or implied acceptance by the donee?

(iii) Whether the Appellate Court is justified in relying on Exts. B1 and B2 for dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title?

5. Heard the appellant/plaintiff in person as also the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

6. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 her