Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SRIMATHY
M. Kamala – Appellant
Versus
Balasubramaniyan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. SRIMATHY, J.
The present Appeal Suit is filed by the defendants in the suit against the decree and judgment dated 04.08.2018, passed in the suit in O.S.No.160 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli.
2. The plaintiff in the suit is the 1st respondent herein, the defendants 1 to 11 are the appellants herein and the defendants 12 and 13 are the respondents 2 and 3 herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as per the ranking in the suit.
3. The suit is filed for preliminary decree for partition and for allotting 13/24 share in the suit property by metes and bounds. The brief facts are that the plaintiff's father and mother namely, Thennavan and Kunjammal got married in May 1965 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of the wedlock the plaintiff was born on 13.08.1981. Immediately after the delivery, the plaintiff's mother Kunjammal died on 19.08.1981, leaving behind the plaintiff and her husband as legal heirs and she died intestate. The plaintiff's mother while she was alive, had purchased the suit property on 27.02.1980 bearing Door No.59/1 and thereafter, she was in possession and enjoyment
In partition suits concerning benami transactions, the burden of proving such claims lies with the defendants; failure to do so results in equal distribution of shares among legal heirs.
The burden of proof in claiming a property as a benami lies on the person alleging it, and presumption favors the name holder unless proven otherwise.
The burden of proving a benami transaction rests on the party asserting the plea, and the defendants failed to discharge this burden.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish a property as benami, which was not satisfied in this case.
A plaintiff claiming a benami transaction bears the burden of proof, and the absence of credible evidence can lead to dismissal of the claim.
Benami Transaction – One who alleges that a property is benami and is held, nominally, on behalf of real owner, has to displace initial burden of proving that fact.
Ownership of property established through financial contribution and valid settlement deeds supersedes claims of joint family ownership without corroborative evidence.
The court affirmed that daughters are coparceners entitled to equal shares in ancestral property, overriding claims of separate ownership based on the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act.
Claims of property ownership must be substantiated with credible evidence, as allegations of trust do not override the Benami Transactions Act without proof of fraud.
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
