The burden of proof in a benami transaction lies on the person alleging it, and the court must consider various factors to determine the nature of the transaction.

This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 24. 1995 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.182 of 1989, which is a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of house property. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their ligitative 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) Plaintiff is the D1s daughters son, so to say he is the maternal grant-son of D1. D2 is the son of D1. The plaintiff and D1 were doing jointly grocery business at Santhavasal Village from August 1982 till January 1988. Consequent upon the misunderstanding, which erupted between them, in conducting the business, the plaintiff stopped attending the joint business and the accounts between them are yet to be settled relating to it.

.(b) the plaintiff started his own independent business and earned money sufficiently and purchased from one K.Krishnamurthy, S/o.Konda Reddy vide Sale Deed dated 11. 1996, the vacant site, which constituted the Eastern portion of the vendors larger extent of land. The Western portion was purchased by D1 from the very same Krishnamurthy.

.(c) The plaintiff and D1 bore the expenditure involved in making construction over the vacant site and it was constructed in such a manner that the Eastern portion of the building would constitute one Unit and the Western portion would constitute another unit. The plaintiff has been paying tax for the Eastern portion and enjoying it as full owner, in all aspects.

.(d) Since the plaintiff refused to marry the daughter of D2, bad blood started running in the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants and the latter unlawfully occupied the Eastern portion also, which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for declaration of title over the suit property and for delivery of possession, in addition to praying for mesne profits.

3. Remonstrating and refuting, gainsaying and contradicting the allegations/averments in the plaint, D2 filed the written statement, which was adopted by D1, the pith and marrow of it would run thus:-

The relationship among the parties is an admitted one. The plaintiff did not have had the financial wherewithal to purchase the suit property as claimed by him and he had no business of his own. The plaintiff never spent any money for constructing the superstructure as claimed in the plaint. Barefaced lie as it is, that the plaintiff and D1 were doing joint family business. Even though the sale deed stands in the name of the plaintiff, nonetheless, the entire sale consideration was paid by the second defendant only and the plaintiff had not contributed anything for raising the construction over the suit property. D2 stood as surety for the grant of loan by the State Bank in the name of the plaintiff, which is indicative of the fact that D2 only raised money.

Accordingly, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 apart from examining P.W.2-Ganesa Gounder and P.W.3-Gopal Mudaliar and Ex.A1 to Ex.A29 were marked on the plaintiffs side. On the side of the defendants, the second defendant was examined as D.W.1 apart from examining D.W.2 to D.W.6 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked.

5. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court the defendants filed this appeal on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus:-

.(a) Ignoring the fact that the plaintiff had not proved his financial ability and capability to purchase the plot and raise construction, the trial Court simply decreed the suit.

.(b) Absolutely there is no evidence before the trial Court to arrive at the conclusion that the plaintiff, from out of his own income, purchased the plot and raised c