The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of properly framing issues related to benami transactions and the burden of proof in establishing such transactions.

The first defendant in the suit has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dated 30.04.1990 made in O.S.No.154 of 1988.

2. The case of the plaintiffs as put before the Trial Court is, as under:

(i) The property described in the A Schedule originally belonged to one Logappa Chettiar and his brothers; Logappa Chettiar had two sons, namely, Kuppusami Chettiar and Krishnappa Chettiar; by a registered Partition Deed dated 25.01.1888, the suit property was partitioned between Kuppusami Chettiar and Krishnappa Chettiar; Krishnappa Chettiar pre-deceased his brother Kuppusami Chettiar, leaving behind his son Rangamannar Chettiar; Kuppusami Chettiar had no male issues and hence after his death, Krishnappa Chettiars son Rangamannar Chettiar had got the ancestral property by Survivorship; Rangamannar Chettiar had a son, by name, Srinivasa Chettiar and a daughter, by name, Alamelu; Srinivasa Chettiar had a son by name Pandurangan, the second plaintiff and the third plaintiff is his minor son; Alamelu, the third defendant was married to one Subramanian, the second defendant; out of their wedlock, four children namely, Rajamohan, Palani, Govindaraj and Malliga were born and they were arrayed as defendants 1, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, before the Trial Court.

(ii) Rangamannar Chettiar was adjudged as insolvent in I.P.No.31 of 1929 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore; accordingly, the suit property described in A schedule was brought to sale in insolvency on 19.03.1991; the property was sold by the official Receiver and in that sale, the property was taken in court auction by one Kalyanarama Iyer for Rs.72/-, who was a close friend of Rangamannar Chettiar. Rangamannar Chettiar purchased the properties in the name of his close friend Kalayanarama Iyer in order to sell the same for the benefit of the family; the said Kalyanarama Iyer had no title to the property and he was only a benamidar; he never took possession of the property and it was only Rangamannar Chettiar, who continued to be in possession of the same. On 211. 1937, the said Kalyanarama Iyer re-conveyed the property to Rukmani Ammal, mother of Rangamannar Chettiar by means of a sale deed for Rs.100/-, but no money was actually paid to him; the property was purchased for the benefit of the joint family in the name of Rukmani Ammal, because Rangamannar Chettiar filed an insolvency petition and there were undischarged decrees; Rukmani Ammal had no title to the property.

(iii) The sale in favour of Rukmani Ammal is nominal, which is evident from the fact that the sale deed never came into effect; the property assessment stood always in the name of Rangamannar Chettiar; it was never changed in favour of Rukmani Ammal, both before and after the insolvency sale; the property has also been dealt with as the property of Rangamannar Chettiar and later by his son, by name, Srinivasa Chettiar, the first plaintiff in the suit.

(iv) Rangamannar Chettiar died on 31.07.1939 and after his death, the first plaintiff has been in possession of the schedule mentioned suit property in his own right and he had executed several mortgages in which Rukmani Ammal was also a party; in the documents, Rukmani Ammal has admitted that the suit properties were ancestral properties of the first plaintiff; therefore, Rukmani Ammal or any person claiming under her are estopped from claiming any title to the suit property. Electricity service connection for the suit property always stood in the name of the first plaintiff; there are two service connections i.e., S.C.658 and S.C.4279 and from the year 1941, the first plaintiff alone was paying the house tax and the electricity bills.

(v) The first plaintiff, his wife Perundevi Ammal and their son Pandurangan, the second plaintiff were all living together in the suit property; the first plaintiffs sister, Alamelu and her husband, the second defendant were previously living at Thirupapuliyur, Cuddalore2