The burden of proof lies on the husband to establish that the property purchased in the name of his wife was not for her benefit, and the question of whether a property is held benami is a question of fact.

The plaintiff is the appellant in the suit and the appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.1999 made in A.S. No.282 of 1998 on the file of the Sub-court, Kovilpatti confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.08.1998, made in O.S. No.14 of 1997, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti, and the suit is filed for declaration and injunction.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

The plaintiff and the first defendant are the husband and wife. The plaintiff is a doctor. According to the plaintiff, he had purchased the suit property in the name of the defendant from one Mrs. Ponnaiah, on 12.06.1975 for a sum of Rs.9,000/-. The property was purchased for the plaintiff and he never intended to give the property to the defendant. The plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the property and the title deeds were also in the possession of the plaintiff. Later, difference of opinion arose between the defendant and plaintiff and they were living separately. The defendant claims title of the property. Therefore, the suit is filed for declaration and injunction.

3. The defendants denied that the suit property was purchased as benami in the name of the defendant. She raised certain allegations regarding the conduct and the character of the plaintiff. The trial Court framed triable issues and on analysing the oral and documentary evidence, it found that the suit property was not purchased as benami and therefore dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed on the same grounds, against which, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds.

“1. that the courts below failed to see that even in the endorsements on the sale deed before the Registrar in Ex.A. 1 it is clearly stated that only the appellant paid the sale consideration on behalf of the resp, vendee therein

2. that the courts below failed to see that the appellant has proved beyond doubt the principles governing the question of benami transaction as follows:

(a) The appellant purchased the suit property only for the purpose of constructing a hospital for his son, who is also a doctor, which factor goes to show that the appellant did not intend to purchase for the benefit of the respondent.

(b)The appellant being a doctor who had sufficient income on the date of the transaction paid the purchase money himself. Even though Exs. B.1 and B.2 pass books stand in the name of the respondent, the moneys deposited in it were only by the appellant. Therefore, the purchase is prima facie assumed to be for the benefit of the appellant who supplied the purchase money.

.(c) The intention of the appellant who contributed the purchase money was to put up a hospital there for himself and for his son who is a doctor.

3. that the courts below erred in holding that the appellant had not stated that the moneys deposited in Exs.B.1 and B.2 are paid by him.

4. that as per Ex.A.10 release deed, the respondent received a sum of Rs.25,000/- even in 1963, but the respondent has stated that the bank account was open only after the appellant started his private practice. The reason for opening 2 bank account on the same date is not explained by the respondent.

5. that the sale under Exs. B.11, B.9 and B.10 were for the benefit of the respondent has not been proved by the respondent when the person who advances that the sale was only benami and not to benefit the name lender the burden shifts on the persons who claims benefit under the sale.

6. that the courts below have not correctly approached the principles governing the decision of the benami transaction”.

4. On admission of second appeal, the following questions of law were formulated:

1. Is the courts below correct in dismissing the suit when the appellant has categorically established the Ex.A.1 transaction was benami in the name of his wife?

2. Are the courts below correct in holding that the plaintiff has no cause of action based on E