The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of benami transactions and the real ownership of properties, considering the source of purchase money, the nature of the transactions, and the burden of proof on the party assailing the transaction.

1. For understanding the facts of this case in a better perspective, pedigree-table is necessary to be given. There was one Dhallu Ram Malik. He had three wives. He was karta of the Joint Hindu family before the partition of the country. From his second wife, he had three sons named H. C. Malik, R. B. Malik and P. C. Malik, From his third wife, he had four sons named Ram Malik, K. L. Malik, Charanjit Lal Malik and Om Prakash Malik. The joint Hindu Family owned considerable agricultural land and other immovable properties in Jhang, now in Pakistan. Dhallu Ram Malik who was karta of the Joint Hindu Family died before partition of the country. After the partition of the country, all the members of the Joint Hindu Family, migrated to India leaving behind vast immovable properties in Jhang. Joint Hindu Family was allotted the following lands in lieu of the Joint Hindu Family property abandoned in Pakistan :

(i) 20 acres plot at Garden colony at village Lali, District Rohtak. (ii) As lightly bigger agricultural land at village Kharkhoda, District Rohtak.

2. Recapitulating, Dhallu Ram had married thrice. He had no issue from the first wife. the progeny from the second wife i.e. H. C. Malik, R. B. Malik and P. C. Malik managed property at village Lali in District Rohtak while Ram Malik, K. L. Malik, Charanjit Lal Malik and Om Prakash Malik i.e. progeny from the third wife started managing property at village Kharkhoda, H. C. Malik got allotted the following plots in his name :

(i) A residential plot in Jhang colony, Rohtak; (ii) One residential plot i.e., House No. 147, Model town, Hissar. These plots were allotted in lieu of Joint Hindu Family property abandoned in Pakistan. The other brothers namely the progeny from the third wife of Dhallu Ram did not raise any objection presumably for the reason that all the brothers had very cordial relations and also for the reason that H. C. Malik was a civil servant holding an important post and other brothers did not want to spoil their personal relations with H. C. Malik, although the property got allotted in his own name got allotted in lieu of Joint Hindu Family property abandoned in Pakistan, H. C. Malik married twice. From his first wife, he had three sons named Varinder Kumar, Mohinder Pratap Malik and Rajinder Parshad Malik and daughter Prem Saluja. From his second wife, H. C. Malik, did not have any progeny. After the death of his first wife whose name was Shanti Devi, H. C. Malik married a woman around 1947 whose name was also incidentally Shanti Devi. This Shanti Devi is defendant in the case. In this case sons of H. C. Malik are pitted against their step-mother Shanti Devi, whom their father married around 1947, after the death of their mother, Shanti Devi. At the time of the death of plaintiffs mother-Shanti Devi, plaintiffs father H. C. Malik was posted as agriculture officer at Sirsa. At that time, defendant-Shanti Devi was employed as teacher in Girls High School, Sirsa, plaintiffs father H. C. Malik developed considerable liking for the defendant and subsequently married her. Agricultural land held and possessed by the Joint Hindu Family at village Lali yielded considerable income. As the plaintiffs father was an agriculture officer, he derived more income by managing the agricultural properties than an average farmer could derive by managing similar quality of land, Plaintiffs were children. Their father acquired properties at Chandigarh i.e. House No. 8, Sector 11, Chandigarh and house No. 1224, Old Committee Wali Gali, Sirsa with the income of properties situated at Lali. His own salary was hardly sufficient for the maintenance of his family which comprised his three sons, second wife, daughter, second wifes crippled mother and three unmarried sisters. It was impossible for him to acquire two properties out of his fixed salary more particularly when he had the plaintiffs and their step mother to support. When the plaintiffs father married defendants crippled mother