In order to establish a benami transaction, the claimant must prove that the purchase money came from him, that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property, that there was a motive for giving the transaction a benami colour, that the relationship between the claimant and the alleged benamidar was such that it was likely that the property would be purchased in the name of the latter, that the title deeds were in the custody of the claimant, and that the parties conducted themselves in a manner consistent with the property being held benami.

JUDGMENT :- C. S. No. 6 of 1973. Suit for declaration relating to the half share in house and ground No 31, Basin Water Works Street, G. T. Madras', for division, and for separate possession of the said half share.

2. The plaint allegations inter alia are :

3. The first defendant is the wife of the plaintiff. They were married in or about 1937. They have two daughters and one son. The first defendant's father had a small old superstructure, namely, No. 31, Basin Water Works Street, G. T. Madras. The land belonged to the Corporation of Madras. In 1954, the Corporation of Madras filed an Ejectment Suit No. 41 of 1954 in the Court of Small Causes, Madras to evict the first defendant. An application was filed to purchase the land as the tenancy was covered by the provisions of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act of 1922. Ultimately, a sum of Rs. 1,292 was paid as the price of the land and a sale deed was obtained in the name of the first defendant with the money paid by the plaintiff. In 1962, the superstructure thereon was rebuilt from the money advanced by the lessees Messrs. Southern Roadways which was a sum of Rs. 12,000. The plaintiff raised a loan of Rs. 9,000 in 1965 from one Lakshmana Chetty and discharged the amount borrowed from M/s. Southern Roadways. A mortgage in favour of Lakshmana Chetty was executed at the direction of the plaintiff by the first defendant. Another mortgage was executed by the first defendant in favour of one Boodevi Ammal for a sum of Rs. 10,000. In order to celebrate the marriage of the second daughter Vijayalakshmi yet another mortgage in favour of one Pukhraj Chordia was executed for Rs. 15,000. The mortgage in favour of the second defendant is for Rs. 20,000. The plaintiff submits that the mortgage is not binding on him and the second defendant has been impleaded as a party in order that the plaintiff's right may be protected and the plaintiff's case is that the purchase in the name of the first defendant is benami for the benefit of the plaintiff and since the first defendant denies the title of the plaintiff the present suit has come to be filed.

4. The written statement of the first defendant is to the following effects : The plaintiff's parents did not own any property and the plaintiff had no wherewithal to contribute to the purchase of the suit site or for the construction of the superstructure thereon. The plaintiff was employed as a clerk on a meagre salary in S. R. V. S. Limited and his monthly income was not sufficient to meet the needs of the family. It is not true to say that the plaintiff paid Rs. 1,292 towards the cost of the site. The superstructure was put up from the monies borrowed by executing mortgages in favour of Messrs. Southern Roadways which was discharged by executing a later mortgage in favour of Lakshmana Chetty. The money borrowed under the mortgage in favour of Boodevi Ammal was utilised to complete the additional construction. The money borrowed under the mortgage in favour of Pukhraj Chordia was used only for the marriage of Vijayalakshmi, the second daughter. On 4-12-1970 a sum of Rs. 20,000 was borrowed from the second defendant in order to discharge the prior mortgage in favour of Lakshmana Chetty and also the debt under the promissory note and to meet the other family expenses. The suit property is not jointly owned by the plaintiff and the first defendant, nor is the plaintiff in joint possession and enjoyment of the property and it belongs to the first defendant absolutely. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. It may be stated at this stage that pending the suit, the mortgage in favour of the second defendant was discharged by the first defendant and therefore, he has not filed any written statement.

6. On these pleadings the following Issues were set put for trial :

1. Whether the suit property was purchased in the name of the first defendant benami for the benefit of the plaintiff?

2. Whether the sui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document