High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE
V. KANAKARAJ
Parvathi Ammal
Versus
Solai Ammal and another
Letters Patent Appeal No.256 of 1994
Decided On : 10-03-1997
BENAMI TRANSACTION - PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY HUSBAND IN WIFE'S NAME - PRESUMPTION OF BENEFIT TO WIFE - BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIMANT TO PROVE OTHERWISE - BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988, SEC. 3(2).
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, daughter of Kesava Padayachi, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in suit schedule properties. The suit properties comprised four parts consisting of various items of immovable properties and suit B schedule consisting of movables. The defendants, Kesava Padayachi's wife and son, contended that the suit properties were joint family properties and that the plaintiff was entitled to only 1/6th share. The trial court decreed the suit as claimed by the plaintiff for her 1/3rd share in respect of all the items mentioned by her. On appeal, the single judge reversed the trial court's judgment in respect of items standing in the name of the 1st defendant, holding that the plaintiff was precluded from asserting the claim of benami in respect of such items due to the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had failed to substantiate her claim that items 1 to 4 of part III of the plaint 'A' schedule and item No.3 of Part IV of Plaint 'A' schedule standing in the name of the 1st defendant were not self-acquired properties or the benefit or the welfare of the 1st defendant by her husband Kesava Padayachi but that she had been holding the properties benami for her husband or the family of her husband. The court found that there was no evidence to show that the funds which went as consideration for the purchase under Ex.A-7 was out of the funds of the joint family and that the inevitable presumption only would be that the husband of P.W-2 wanted to benefit her by purchasing the property to her in her name.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is precluded from asserting the claim of benami in respect of items standing in the name of the 1st defendant due to the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988? 2. Whether the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the properties standing in the name of the 1st defendant were purchased benami?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, do not apply retrospectively and, therefore, the plaintiff was not precluded from asserting the claim of benami in respect of items standing in the name of the 1st defendant. 2. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish that the properties standing in the name of the 1st defendant were purchased benami. The court noted that there was no evidence to show that the funds which went as consideration for the purchase were out of the funds of the joint family and that the inevitable presumption was that the husband of the 1st defendant wanted to benefit her by purchasing the property to her in her name.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the single judge, though not for the same reasonings but on the different findings and conclusions rendered by the court on merits of the plea of benami.
Raju. J.
The above appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 23. 1994 in,A.S.No.454 of 1982 whereunder the learned Judge has chosen to allow the appeal, in part which has been filed by the defendants in O.S.N0.138 of l980 on me file of Sub Courts, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment of the trial Court in respect of other portion.
2. The appellant in the appeal, who is the daughter of one Kesava, Padayachi and, Solaianimal, the 1st defendant herein, is also the sister of the 2nd defendant. She filed a suit for partition and separate pos-session of her l/3rd share in suit schedule properties.Tthe suit A schedule property comprised four parts consisting of various items of immovable properties and suit B schedule consisting of movables as described therein.
3. The case of the plaintiff as per the averments in the plaint is that the suit properties belonged to her father Kesava Padayachi who died on 30.5.1979, mat the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are the daughter and son of the said Kesava Padayachi and the 1st defendant and mat Kesava Padayachi died intestate. The further case of the plaintiff was mat the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of Kesava Padayachi and, therefore, on his death, each of the parties to the suit are entitled to l/3rd share. The defendants 1 and 2 are said to be in possession realising the income from the immovable properties and also appropriating them since the date of death of Kesava Padayachi and without paying anything to the plaintiff and the unreasonable attitude taken by the defendants has driven the plaintiff to the necessity of filing the suit, for the relied noticed supra. The defendants are also, according to the plaintiff, liable to account to the plaintiff for the income and mesne profits under O.20, Rule 18, C.P.C.
4. The 2nd defendant has filed a written statement which was adopted by the 1st respondent contending that the suit properties are not the self-acquired properties of Kesava Padayachi, that except the properties which do not belong to Kesava Padayachi’s family, as such all other properties are joint family properties and that therefore, the plaintiff will not be entitled to l/3rd share as claimed but she would be entitled to only l/6th share. It was also contended mat on the death of Appaswamy Padayachi, father of Kesava Padaychi, the latter got certain properties as set out in the written statement and from out of the income of the said properties and also the sale proceeds realised from certain items thereof sold on behalf of Kesava Padayachi, the properties have been acquired by Kesava Padayachi for the family and that therefore, the suit properties standing in the name of the father, are the joint family properties. The written statement also disclosed the items of properties which do not belong to the family. Some of those properties are items 1 to 4 of Part 3 of plaint A Sched- ule, which belong to the 1st defendant and that she had settled them on her grandsons viz., the sons of the 2nd defendant and similarly item 3 of Part 4 of Plaint A schedule also belonged to the 1 st defendant which also she settled on her grandsons on 7. 1980, which settlement came to be marked as Ex.B-2. On the above claims and counter claims, the suit came to be tried and oral evidence was let in by both sides. The plaintiff examined herself on her side and the defendants examined themselves in addition to other witnesses. The plaintiff did not produce any documentary evidence and on the other hand, the defendants, produced Ex.B-1 to B-9. A Commissioner was also appointed and he filed his report and list of moveables which were marked as C-l and C-2.
5. The learned trial Judge, by his judgment and decree dated 4. 1982, passed preliminary decree on the view that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of Kesava Padayachi, that the items of properties standing in the name
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.