The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the elements of a Benami transaction as per the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and the exceptions under Section 4(3) (a) and (b) to determine the nature of the transaction.

V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral) : This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1999 passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, vide which he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 29.6.1996 of the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the appellant.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant hereinafter also referred to as the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction as against the respondents hereinafter also referred to as defendants No. 1 and 2. It was alleged that the plot bearing No. MIG-20 measuring 207 Sq. Metres, situated in Housing Board Colony, Nahan, was the joint property of the parties. It was alleged that half share is owned by defendant No. 1 and remaining half share by the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.2. It was also alleged that thesuit property was purchased by the parties out of their joint funds. The sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No. 1 as sole owner. It was further alleged that the plaintiff and proforma defendant purchased the property in the name of defendant No.1 being their elder brother in view of a mutual settlement between the parties. A prayer was also made for the grant of permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from raising construction on the part of the suit property depicted by the blue colour in the site plan. The proforma defendant supported the plaintiff ‘s case.

3. The suit was contested by Sita Ram, defendant No. 1, on the ground that he had purchased the property with the income from his own property. He refuted the plaintiff’s claim that he and proforma defendant had contributed for purchase of the suit property. He further pleaded that he had independently applied for acquisition of a plot to the Housing Board, Shimla in April, 1980 and acquired the suit property by paying its price from his own pocket. The allegations made in regard to plaintiff and defendant No. 2 having contributed a sum of Rs.3000/- were alleged to be false. He pleaded that he invested a sum of Rs.2.50 Lacs and no money was contributed by the plaintiff and proforma defendant.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- (1) Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of (2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? .... O.P.D. (3) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is its value? ... O.P. Parties. (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? ... O.P.D. (5) Whether the suit property was purchased jointly, as alleged? If so, to what effect? ... O.P.P.(6) Whether the plaintiff and defendants formed a joint Hindu family, as alleged? ... O.P.P. (7)Relief.

5. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment decided almost all the issues as against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant No. 1 and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in full. An appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was dismissed. Hence, the second appeal filed by the appellant.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

7. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 2 being the younger brother of defendant No. 1 had also contributed towards the funds for the purchase and construction of the house and as such, they are also joint owners to the extent of half share in the suit property purchased by defendant No. 1 from the Housing Board. It was submitted that the plaintiff had pleaded that the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 2 had spent Rs.4,500/- for buying of the plot and the learned