2004 (8) TMI 725 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit for declaration and permanent injunction - Property dispute between the members of the family - Onus of proving the benami nature of the sale on the defendants - Whether the sale of the suit land in favor of Ramayee Ammal was a benami transaction - money for the purchase of the suit land - The plaintiff Malaya Gounder claimed that he purchased the suit land in the name of his wife Ramayee Ammal as a benami to protect it from creditors of his brother. HELD THAT - There is a presumption in law that the person who purchases the property is the owner of the same. This presumption can be displaced by successfully pleading and proving that the document was taken benami in the name of another person from some reason and the person whose name appears in the document is not the real owner but only a benami. Heavy burden lies on the person who pleads that the recorded owner is a benami-holder. Land was purchased by Ramayee Ammal in the year 1933. During these six years no other creditors had come forward to claim any money against him or his uncle for whom the guarantee was given by his brother. Debt if any would have become time barred. Even after 1933 no creditor came forward with any claim. Marappa Gounder brother of the plaintiff died in 1923. The property was sold in execution of the decree in the year 1927 and the sale deed in favour of Ramayee Ammal the wife of the plaintiff was executed in the year 1933. Apprehension of the plaintiff that some other creditors of Marappa Gounder might proceed against the plaintiff is totally unjustified. The case put up by the plaintiff that he purchased the land in the name of his wife benami does not seem to be plausible. The plaintiff did not provide any money for the purchase of the land in the name of his wife. Neither in the plaint nor in his deposition the plaintiff explained satisfactorily when the money was provided by a third person. Neither the person who alleged to have paid the money nor anyone else on his behalf has examined as a witness. Therefore it cannot be held that Pattayakkaarar or anyone else paid the consideration on behalf of the plaintiff. It is not even averred by the plaintiff that Pattayakkaarar provided money on his behalf or that he repaid the money to him later. It is well settled that intention of the parties is essence of the benami transaction and the money must have bean provided by the party invoking the doctrine of benami. The evidence shows clearly that the original plaintiff did not have any justification for purchasing the property in the name of Ramayee Ammal. The reason given by him is not at all acceptable. The source of money is not at all traceable to the plaintiff. No person named in the plaint or anyone else was examined as a witness. The failure of the plaintiff to examine the relevant witnesses completely demolishes his case. Since the original plaintiff failed to prove that he had provided the money for the purchase of the land and the reasons why he purchased the property benami in the name of his wife the High Court has come to the right conclusion that Ramayee Ammal did not hold the property as benami on behalf of her husband Malaya Gounder. Thus we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sale of the suit land in favor of Ramayee Ammal was a benami transaction.
2. Whether the courts below wrongly cast the onus of proving the benami nature of the sale on the defendants.
3. Whether the plaintiff provided the money for the purchase of the suit land.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the sale of the suit land in favor of Ramayee Ammal was a benami transaction.
The plaintiff, Malaya Gounder, claimed that he purchased the suit land in the name of his wife, Ramayee Ammal, as a benami to protect it from creditors of his brother. The Trial Court and the first Appellate Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Ramayee Ammal was holding the property benami on behalf of Malaya Gounder. However, the High Court reversed these findings, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove the benami nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that he had purchased the property in the name of his wife as a benami.

Issue 2: Whether the courts below wrongly cast the onus of proving the benami nature of the sale on the defendants.
The High Court noted that the burden of proving a benami transaction lies heavily on the person who alleges it. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle, citing several precedents, and concluded that the plaintiff did not meet this burden. The High Court found that the lower courts had misconceived and misconstrued the evidence, leading to a grave error in decreeing the suit.

Issue 3: Whether the plaintiff provided the money for the purchase of the suit land.
The plaintiff claimed that one Pattayakkaarar provided the money for the purchase, but he failed to provide any evidence or witnesses to support this claim. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff did not satisfactorily explain the source of the money and that no credible evidence was presented to show that Pattayakkaarar or anyone else paid the consideration on behalf of the plaintiff. The Court emphasized that the intention of the parties and the source of the purchase money are crucial in determining a benami transaction, both of which were not proven by the plaintiff.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that Ramayee Ammal was the absolute owner of the property and did not hold it as benami on behalf of her husband, Malaya Gounder. The plaintiff failed to prove the benami nature of the transaction and the source of the purchase money. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.