Valliammal (D) By Lrs. vs Subramaniam

Q: Key Points

Key Point: The source from where the purchase money came and the motive why the property was purchased benami are by far the most important tests for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in reality for the benefit of another. [judgement_subject][IMPORTANT POINT] (!) [1000092650012] (!) (!) Supporting Principles: - There is a presumption in law that the person who purchases the property is the owner of the same. This presumption can be displaced only by successfully pleading and proving that the document was taken benami, with a heavy burden on the person alleging it. [1000092650010][1000092650011] - The burden of proving a benami transaction lies on the person who alleges it; the essence is the intention of the parties, which cannot be proven by mere conjectures or surmises. [1000092650011] - Title vests in the person in whose favour the sale deed is executed, and the claimant must prove valid reasons for the benami purchase and that they provided the purchase money. Failure to trace the source of funds or examine relevant witnesses demolishes the case. [1000092650013][1000092650014][1000092650015][1000092650016][1000092650017]

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 Supreme(SC) 983

ASHOK BHAN, S.H.KAPADIA
Valliammal (D) By Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Subramaniam – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Key Point:
The source from where the purchase money came and the motive why the property was purchased benami are by far the most important tests for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in reality for the benefit of another. [judgement_subject][IMPORTANT POINT] (!) [1000092650012] (!) (!)

Supporting Principles:
- There is a presumption in law that the person who purchases the property is the owner of the same. This presumption can be displaced only by successfully pleading and proving that the document was taken benami, with a heavy burden on the person alleging it. [1000092650010][1000092650011]
- The burden of proving a benami transaction lies on the person who alleges it; the essence is the intention of the parties, which cannot be proven by mere conjectures or surmises. [1000092650011]
- Title vests in the person in whose favour the sale deed is executed, and the claimant must prove valid reasons for the benami purchase and that they provided the purchase money. Failure to trace the source of funds or examine relevant witnesses demolishes the case. [1000092650013][1000092650014][1000092650015][1000092650016][1000092650017]

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No. 1324 of 1983 wherein the High Court while reversing and setting aside the concurrent judgments of the two courts below has dismissed the suit which had been decreed by the courts below, the plaintiff/appellants have filed the present appeal (now represented through L.Rs.).

2. Since the dispute is between the members of the family it would be useful to refer to genealogy of the family, which is as under:

ANGAPPA GOUNDER

DIED 1904

(When Malaya Gounder was 10 years old)

/ /

Malaya Gounder Marappa Gounder Plaintiff (Died on 23.6.1983) (Died in 1923) / /

Ramayee Ammal (wife) Nachayyee Ammal (Died on 2.1.1979) (Died in 1925)

/ / / /

(son) (daughter) (daughter) (daug

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 983

ASHOK BHAN, S.H.KAPADIAValliammal (D) By Lrs. – AppellantVersusSubramaniam – Respondent

Cases Referred (5)

ASHOK BHAN, S.H.KAPADIA
Valliammal (D) By Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Subramaniam – Respondent