The burden of proof in establishing a benami transaction, the applicability of the Benami Prohibition Act, 1988, and the mandatory presumption in favor of the wife or unmarried daughter in case of property purchased in their name.

1. This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1) Tindivanam in A.S. No.79 of 2002 dated 110. 2002, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam in O.S. No.137 of 1994 dated 20.8.1998.

2. Theaverments contained in the Plaint are as follows:

(i) The suit property is absolutely belonging to the plaintiff’s wife viz. Chinnakulandai Ammal. The plaintiff’s father-in-law Rangasamy Pillai is having 3 daughters viz. Chinnakulandai Ammal and defendants 1 and 2. When Chinnakulandai Ammal was minor, the suit property has been purchased by Rangasamy Pillai as guardian of Chinnakulandai ammal on 20.8.1964 for Rs. 1,500/- Since, Chinnakulandai Ammal was physically challenged and not keeping good health, the property has been purchased for the benefit of her marriage. After purchasing the property, Rangasamy Pillai was in possession and enjoyment of the same on behalf of Chinnakulandaiammal and neither Rangasamy Pillai nor the defendants have right over the property. The marriage between the plaintiff and Chinnakulandai Ammal was solemnised 21 years before the filing of suit. At the time of marriage, Rangasamy Pillai and his wife Ponnammal promised to give 1/3rd share of the property belonging to them to the plaintiff apart from the suit property. Chinnakulandai Ammal died 2 years back without issues prior to the filing of the Suit. The plaintiff by way of succession is in possession and enjoyment of the same and is also paying kist. Since the defendants attempted to interefere with the suit property, the plaintiff is constrained to file the Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and prayed for a decree.

3. Thegist and essence of the written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:

.(i) The suit property is belonging to Chinnakulandai Ammal. Rangasamy Pillai is having three daughters. The property has been purchased by Rangasamy Pillai in the name of his minor daughter Chinnakulandai Ammal for the benefit her marriage since she was physically challenged is hereby denied. The marriage between the plaintiff and Chinnakulandai Ammal has been performed 21 years before the Suit. he averment that the plaintiff has married Chinnakulandai Ammal based on the undertaking given by her parent Rangasamy Pillai and Ponnammal that they have given 1/3rd share of the property belonging to them apart from the property is denied. The suit property has been purchased out of the income of Rangasamy Pillai.

.(ii) During the life time of Chinnakulandai ammal, she has not claimed any right over the property and she was in possession and enjoyment of the property. The property was purchased by Rangasamy Pillai and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Then, he executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendants from the date of settlement deed and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Chinnakulandai Ammal was left out by the plaintiff after her marriage. Only to grab the property, the plaintiff has filed the Suit. Chinnakulandai Ammal during her life time never claimed any right over the property and she was not in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Suit is for non-joinder of necessary party. Hence, the defendants are prayed for dismissal of the Suit.

4. Thelearned Principal District Munisif, Tindivanam after considering the arguments of both counsel and the averments contained both in the Plaint and the written statement, framed six issues and considering the documents Exs.A1 to A5 and B1 to B23 and the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and D.W1 and D.W.2, dismissed the Suit with costs. Against that, the plaintiff has preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.79 of 2002. The learned Additional District (Fast Track Court No.1) Tindivanam after considering the arguments of both sides, framed 6 points for determination and allowed the Appeal. Against that, the present Appeal has been preferred by the