Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
Kaliammal(died) by LRs & Another
Versus
S.K.Subramanian & Others
A.S.No.754 of 1996
Decided on : 22-09-2008
Benami Transaction - Partition Suit - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 - Section 4, Section 3 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988, particularly Section 3(2) and Section 4(3), and the relevant precedents to determine the benami nature of the suit property. The court emphasized the presumption under Section 3(2) that property held in the name of the wife is presumed to be for her benefit, which is rebuttable. The court also highlighted the exceptions provided in Section 4(3) for coparcenary property and property held by a trustee or person in a fiduciary capacity. The judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the original suit was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for partition of ancestral coparcenary property. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was purchased from joint family income, while the defendants contended that the property was the absolute property of the first defendant. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the first defendant appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit property was not purchased from joint family income and was the absolute property of the first defendant. The court also held that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 applied to the case, and the plaintiff failed to prove the benami nature of the property. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the original suit was dismissed.
Issues: The main issues were whether the suit property was purchased from joint family income, whether the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 applied to the case, and whether there was any infirmity in the judgment and decree of the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988, particularly Section 3(2) and Section 4(3), and the relevant precedents to determine the benami nature of the suit property. The court also highlighted the presumption under Section 3(2) that property held in the name of the wife is presumed to be for her benefit, which is rebuttable. The court further considered the exceptions provided in Section 4(3) for coparcenary property and property held by a trustee or person in a fiduciary capacity.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside. The original suit was dismissed.
This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 7. 1996 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani in O.S.No.21 of 1996, which is a suit for partition. For convenience sake the parties are referred to here under as per their letigative status before the trial Court.
2. Niggard and bereft of details, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:
.(a) The deceased Karuppagounder and D1-Kaliammal (since died during the pendency of the appeal) gave birth to two sons and three daughters, namely, S.K.Subramanian-the plaintiff, D2-S.K.Ramasamy, D3-Parvathi, D4-Mariammal and D5-Dhanalaxmi. The said Karuppagounder died on 12. 1994 intestate.
(b) The agricultural land measuring an extent of 1.64 acres in Jambai Village of Bhavani Taluk was allotted to the share of the deceased Karuppagounder, in the partition effected between him and his brother and mother. As such, the said agricultural property constituted the ancestral coparcenary property of the co-parcenery, comprised of Karuppagounder and his two sons, namely, the plaintiff and D2 herein.
.(c) From out of the income derived from it Karuppagounder purchased the house site on 1. 1958, whereupon he raised a house and leased it out to various tenants and earned income. The plaintiff being a lorry driver, earned sufficiently and contributed for the welfare of the joint family and augmented the coparcenary income.
.(d) Karuppagounder was doing firewood business. On 20.10.1999, the plaintiffs father-Karuppagounder purchased the plot area in the suit property, described in the schedule of the plaint, from out of the joint family funds in the name of D1, his wife. The said property was purchased benami in the name of D1, which was intended to confer any benefit to D1. In law, the suit property happened to be the coparcenary property.
.(e) D1 had no financial ability to purchase any property much less the said plot, over which the joint family had put up superstructure for being used as houses and shops.
.(f) The ancestral agricultural properties were sold as per sale Deed dated 1. 1958. A portion of such sale proceeds was utilised for putting up additional constructions in the suit property. The plaintiff with his wife and three daughters living separately in a part of the suit property. Whereas D2 with his son and daughter living in another portion of the suit property. The parents of the plaintiff were much attached towards the second defendants family.
.(g) D6 to D12 are the tenants occupying various portions in the suit properties and Karuppagounder, during his life time collected rents from them. After his death, within a period of six months, dispute erupted between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 in sharing the rents accruing from part of the suit properties. Hence, the suit for partition claiming 7/18th share in the suit properties.
3. Remonstrating and denying, gainsaying and disputing the allegations/averments in the plaint, D1 filed the written statement, which was adopted by D3, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:-
.(i) Karuppagounder and his two sons did not constitute Hindu Co-parcenary family. Karuppagounder during his life time sold the only land belonged to him. The said agricultural land, which Karuppagounder got in the partition was not a Nanja land and no income was derived out of it. Karuppagounder had big family comprised of two sons and three daughters and he could not have saved money. As such, the averments in the plaint as though from out of the joint family income the properties were purchased and constructions were raised are all false.
.(ii) The plot area of the suit property was purchased by D1 as per Sale Deed dated 20.10.1959 from out of her own sources, as she was doing retail business in vegetables and wholesale business in tomatos and derived income. She also sold her 15 sovereign of jewels, which she got from her mother. As such, from out of her own sources she purc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
