Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
9-10-1973.
V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased) through L. Rs. and another, Appellants
Versus
Mst. Bibi Hazra and others. Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1759 of 1967, D/- 19-10-1973.
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 13 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 47, Order 21, Rule 57 and 103 - Sale-Deed - Illegal Possession of House - Whether a particular sale is benami or not, is largely one of fact - Whether sale standing in name of one person, is in reality for benefit of another – Held, Munsiff was not competent to decide subsequent suit from which present appeal has arisen but he urged that this order had become final because no suit under Order 21, Rule 103 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed by Mst. Hakimunnissa to establish her right and as such, this order even if not conclusive was a very efficacious and presumptive proof of fact that Mst. Hakimunnissa to establish her right and as such this order even if not conclusive was a very efficacious and presumptive proof of fact that Mst. Hakimunnissa was merely a benamidar in respect of house in dispute - It is true that date on it was not decipherable; but it was obvious that this document concerned disputed house and related to a period when Mst. Hakimunnissa was alive - This evidence further strengthened conclusion that Mst. Hakimunnissa in her lifetime, and after her death, her daughter Bibi Hazra, were in enjoyment of and dealing with house in dispute as owners thereof - Keeping in view totality of circumstances and probabilities of case, Court have no hesitation in holding that plaintiffs-appellants had failed to prove that Mst. Hakimunnissa in whose name sale deed stood, was not real purchaser but only a benamidar of her husband - Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a dispute over the ownership and benami nature of a house purchased in the name of Mst. Hakimunnissa, with allegations that she was a benamidar for her husband, Abdul Karim (!) (!) .
The court examined evidence including sale deeds, mortgage documents, and witness testimonies to determine whether Mst. Hakimunnissa was the real purchaser or a benamidar (!) (!) .
The burden of proof to establish a sale as benami rests heavily on the party asserting it, requiring clear and convincing evidence rather than mere conjecture (!) .
Several indicia are considered to assess benami transactions, notably the source of purchase funds, possession, motive, relationship between parties, custody of title deeds, and conduct concerning the property (!) (!) .
The court found that Abdul Karim lacked sufficient financial resources to have purchased the house, and that Mst. Hakimunnissa had her own means, supported by documentary evidence and her prior transactions (!) (!) (!) .
Recitals in relevant sale deeds and mortgage documents indicated that Mst. Hakimunnissa was the actual purchaser, and she had incurred debts to purchase the property, further supporting her status as the real owner (!) (!) .
The evidence of possession, municipal records, and rent receipts in her name reinforced the conclusion that she was in enjoyment of the property as an owner, both during her lifetime and after her death (!) (!) .
The court noted that the legal presumption favors the apparent purchaser in a registered sale deed, but this presumption can be rebutted by other evidence indicating a benami transaction (!) .
The court observed that the order dismissing Mst. Hakimunnissa's claim in a previous attachment proceeding was not conclusive but was a persuasive, though not definitive, piece of evidence (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly indicated Mst. Hakimunnissa was the true purchaser, and she was not merely a benamidar for her husband (!) (!) .
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the findings of the lower courts that the sale was genuine and that the property belonged to Mst. Hakimunnissa (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal interpretations related to this case.
Judgment
SARKARIA, J.:- This appeal by certificate is directed against the appellate judgment and decree, dated the 31st October, 1962, in the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
2. The plaintiffs-appellants instituted a suit on 30-6-1956, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Samastipur for a declaration of title and possession in respect of a pucca house in Plot No. 216, Ward III of Samastipur Municipality. It was alleged that Abdul Karim (Defn. No. 1) had out of his own funds, purchased this house in the name of his wife Mst. Hakimunnissa by a registered sale-deed, dated 10-5-1941, from one Abdul Motilib. After the purchase, Defendant No. 1, who was in possession of the house, executed two mortgage deeds, dated 6-1-1948 and 28-7-48,in favour of his son-in-law, Abdul Latif (Defendant No. 3), husband of Mst. Bibi Hazra (Defendant No. 2). Abdul Karim (Defendant No. 1), in order to clear the mortgage dues and for meeting other necessities, agreed to sell the house to Plaintiff No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. Pursuant to this agreement of sale, Plaintiff No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 10,209-4-0, by installments, to Defendant No. 1. Another sum of Rs. 2,990-12-0 was left with Plaintiff No. 2, for payment of the mortgage debts of Defendant No. 3. Rs. 6,800/-, the balance of the price, was paid in cash to the vendor at the time of the registration of the sale-deed on 25-5-1951. Thereafter Plaintiff No. 2 got this house mutated in the Municipal records in her favour. Despite the sale, defendants Nos. 1 to 3, acting in collusion, continued to be in illegal possession of the house.
3. Defendant No. 1, while admitting the execution of the sale deed dated 25-5-1951, pleaded that it was without consideration. He, however, asserted that the house had been purchased by him, and that Mst. Hakimunnissa was only his benamidar. The suit was resisted by Bibi Hazra, Defendant No. 2, on the ground that the house had been purchased by her mother, Mst. Hakimunnissa with her own money, she being a lady of considerable means; and, on Mst. Hakmunnissa s death in 1944, she (Mst. Hazra) inherited and came in possession of 12 annas share therein, while the remaining 4 annas share devolved on Defendant No. 1 according to Mohammedan Law by which the parties were governed in matters of succession. Mst. Hazra further pleaded that the sale deed, dated 24-5-1951 executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Plaintiff No. 2, being a fictitious and collusive document, was ineffective qua her share in the house.
4. The trial court held that "the disputed house did really belong to Abdul Karim, and Mst. Hakimunnissa was his benamidar in the sale-deed (Ex. D/1) by which the house was acquired." and as such Mst. Hazra (Defendant 2) had no interest in it. It further found that the sale-deed in favour of Plaintiff No. 2 executed by Defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit house was "valid, genuine and for a consideration". In the result, it decreed the plaintiff s suit.
5. In First Appeal No. 619 of 1958 preferred by Mst. Hazra (Defendant No. 2), the High Court reversing the finding of the trial court, held that the plaintiffs had failed to show that Mst. Hakimunnissa in whose name the sale-deed (Ex. D/1) dated 10-5-1941 stood, was only a benamidar and not the real purchaser. In consequence, plaintiff s suit was dismissed with regard to 12 annas share of Bibi Hazra and a decree for joint possession of 4 annas share of the vendor (Defendant 1) was passed in favour of plaintiffs.
6. It is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. This burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact or benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of a benami is the intention of the party or parties concerned; and not unoften suc
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
