The burden of proof in a benami transaction lies on the party alleging it, and the presumption of ownership can only be displaced with valid reasons and evidence of payment for the property.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. - Appellant - plaintiffs are aggrieved of concurrent findings rendered against them by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 04.02.2013, as well as by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 02.03.2016 and consequential dismissal of their suit.

2. Suit seeking a decree for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction filed by the appellant - plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the said decision was upheld by the learned First Appellate Court.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that the plaintiff - Pardeep Kumar Bhasin (now represented by his mother and daughter) filed the present suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is the real owner in possession of the house in question situated at Model Town, Karnal as detailed in the plaint with consequential relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant - wife and son from alienating the house in dispute illegally and forcibly. It was pleaded that the plaintiff - Pardeep Kumar was married with respondent - defendant No. 1 Seema Bhasin on 01.06.1996. Two children i.e. a son (respondent No. 2) and a daughter (appellant B) were born out of this wedlock on 10.08.1988 and 11.01.1993 respectively. It was pleaded that plaintiff -Pardeep Kumar was a commission agent running his shop in Grain Market, Karnal. He alongwith his wife and children constituted a joint Hindu family, the plaintiff being the Karta. The house in question was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of his wife -defendant No. 1 from one Kuldeep for a sale consideration of Rs. 6,75,000/-. The plaintiff averred that the house in question was purchased in the name of the defendant as Benamidar. The plaintiff claimed to be the real owner in possession of the house on her own. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 1 was a quarrelsome lady. She left the company of the plaintiff without any reasonable cause on 23.05.2006. She took away his car and both the children with her. After a few days, the car and their daughter were entrusted to the plaintiff. Allegations of defendant No. 1 taking away gold ornaments and cash were also raised. The defendant - wife threatened to alienate the house in question, which was stated to be purchased by the plaintiff from his own income being the Karta. Hence, the suit was filed.

4. Respondent - defendants contested the suit. Written statement was filed raising various preliminary objections. Averments on merits were controverted. It was denied that the property in question was purchased by the plaintiff with his own income in the name of defendant No. 1 as benamidar. Defendant No. 1 claimed to be the absolute owner of the property in question with the plaintiff having no right, title or interest therein. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 was thrown out of the matrimonial home by the plaintiff and the present suit was instituted only as a counter blast to the divorce petition and the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 preferred by defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff at Meerut. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

5. Following issues were framed on the basis of the pleading:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the house No. 44-A, being Karta of the family, situated at Model Town, Karnal detailed in para No. 3 of the plaint?OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the house in dispute?OPP

3. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD.

4. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

5. Whether plaintiffs have concealed true and material facts from the court?OPD

6. Whether the present suit is bad for want of proper court fee and jurisdiction?OPD

7. Relief.

6. Evidence was led by both the pa