Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Jayalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
M.Jamuna Rani – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
1. This First Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2016 in O.S.No.18 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Vellore at Tirupattur.
2. The defeated defendants are appellants herein. The respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.18 of 2012 for partition and separate possession claiming 1/4th share in the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property.
3. After contest, the suit was decreed and hence, this appeal was filed by the defendants.
4. The admitted factual matrix of the case are as under:
(i) The 1st defendant is the wife of one Masilamani. The plaintiff and one Saradha Devi are the daughters of the 1st defendant and Masilamani. The defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the 1st defendant and Masilamani. The said Masilamani served in the Army and subsequently he was employed in Chennai Fort. The said Masilamani died intestate. The Saradha Devi, the younger daughter of the 1st defendant and Masilamani also died. At that time of death of Masilamani the plaintiff, defendants and Saradha Devi were his legal heirs.
(ii) The case of the plaintiff
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.
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 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.
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.
A plaintiff claiming a benami transaction bears the burden of proof, and the absence of credible evidence can lead to dismissal of the claim.
The court emphasized that in ex parte cases, the plaintiff must prove their claims, and the statutory presumption under the Benami Transactions Act favors the spouse unless rebutted.
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
