The burden of proof in a benami transaction lies heavily on the party alleging it, and the intention of the parties involved is crucial. Perversity in the lower court's findings is necessary to interfere in a second appeal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vaniambadi dated 24.09.2012 made in A.S.No.4 of 2009 reversing that of the learned District Munsif, Ambur, dated 11.11.2005 made in O.S.No.24 of 1996.)

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property measuring an extent of 1.32 acres originally belonged to one Sriramalu Reddy. He owed a sum of Rs.750/- to the father of the 1st plaintiff under a promissory note dated 27.5.1927. In discharge of the said debt, the said Sriramulu Reddy offered to sell the suit property in favour of the father of the 1st plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.1000/-. Out of the total sale consideration, the debt amount was agreed to be adjusted and the balance sum of Rs. 250/- was agreed to be paid by way of cash. Accordingly, a registered sale deed dated 26.6.1930 (Ex.A1)came to be executed by the said Sriramulu Reddy and the name of the purchaser was shown as P.Chinnamma Reddy, who is none other than the brother in law of the father of the 1st plaintiff. The name of the father of the 1st plaintiff is Jayarama Reddy. According to the plaintiff, there was a dispute between Jayarama Reddy and his brother Venkatarama Reddy during the relevant point of time and that is why the property was purchased in the name of Benami, P. Chinnamma Reddy.

2. It is stated that the father of the 1st plaintiff was in exclusive and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he was cultivating the land and was also paying the kist in his own name. According to the plaintiff, this understanding was duly recognised and the said Chinnamma Reddy nowhere showed or exhibited that he is the owner of the suit property. Even the Municipal Councillor, Ambur proposed to purchase a portion of the suit property in the year 1956 and recognised the father of the 1st plaintiff as the owner and it was refused to be parted with through a letter dated 21.5.1957.

3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the said Chinnamma Reddy died in the year 1975 leaving behind the 1st and 2nd defendants as his sole legal heirs. The 1st defendant is the son and the 2nd defendant is his wife. The father of the 1st plaintiff, viz. Jayarama Reddy died in the year 1964 leaving behind the 1st plaintiff,the 2nd plaintiff wife and his daughter who is the 3rd defendant in the suit. It is stated that the 1st plaintiff was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the kist receipts came to be issued in the name of the 1st plaintiff.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the 1st and 2nd defendants attempted to sell the suit property in favour of third parties by taking advantage of the sale deed standing in the name of Chinnamma Reddy. Immediately a notice was issued by the 1st plaintiff and a paper publication was also given. In spite of the same, the 1st and 2nd defendants were taking hasty steps to sell the suit property.

5. After the filing of the suit, the defendants 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 created sale deeds and gift deed, marked as Exhibits A-53, A-54 and A-58 and conveyed the property in favour of defendants 4 to 6. Left with no other option, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction and alternatively for delivery of possession if in case the Court holds that the defendants are in possession of the suit property.

6. The written statements were filed by D4 to D6. They took a stand that the suit property was owned by Chinnamma Reddy and he purchased the property for a valid consideration. They further stated that Jayarama Reddy who is the father of the 1st plaintiff, was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. They denied the fact that Chinnamma Reddy was a Benamidar. It was further stated that the 1st defendant is the close relative of the 1st plaintiff and the 1