9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether Ganapathi Bhatta was a benamidar and apparent owner. 2. Application of Section 66, Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) to the transactions related to the Kedila properties. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Determination of whether Ganapathi Bhatta was a benamidar and apparent owner Kedila Properties: - The court examined whether Ganapathi Bhatta was the real owner or merely a benamidar for the Kedila properties. The essential characteristic of a benami transaction is that it is not intended to be operative, and the benamidar is merely a name-lender. - Several factors were considered to determine the real intention of the parties, including the source of purchase money, possession of the property, relationship between the parties, and custody of title deeds. - The court found no motive for the joint family of Bheemayya to put the properties benami in the name of Ganapathi Bhatta. The source of purchase money was not conclusively shown to be from the joint family funds of Bheemayya. - The court noted that all title documents were in the custody of Ganapathi Bhatta, indicating his real ownership. Possession of the properties was also with Ganapathi Bhatta, further supporting his ownership claim. - Therefore, the court concluded that Ganapathi Bhatta was not only the apparent but also the real owner of the Kedila properties. Coffee Estate: - For the coffee estate, the court differed from the learned Subordinate Judge and held that defendants 8 and 9 should be considered the real and apparent owners in moieties based on the sale deed. - The court modified the decree and judgment of the lower court to reflect that one-half of the coffee estate is joint family property of Bheemayya and thus liable for partition. Issue 2: Application of Section 66, Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) to the transactions related to Kedila properties - Section 66, C.P.C., prohibits benami purchases at auction sales, but there are exceptions for purchases made by persons with express or implied authority or by those in a fiduciary position. - The court examined whether Ganapathi Bhatta could be considered an agent for the joint family of Bheemayya, which would exempt the transactions from the prohibition under Section 66, C.P.C. - The court found no evidence to support the claim that Ganapathi Bhatta was an agent for Bheemayya. The relationship between Bheemayya and Ganapathi Bhatta did not fit the legal definition of agency, which requires representation in business negotiations with third parties. - The court noted that the pleadings did not specify when or how Ganapathi Bhatta was constituted as an agent. The evidence showed that Ganapathi Bhatta was a person of moderate affluence and had no motive to act as an agent for Bheemayya. - Therefore, the plea of agency to circumvent Section 66, C.P.C., failed. The court held that Section 66, C.P.C., barred the recovery of the two items of properties covered by the sale certificates. Conclusion: - A.S. No. 499 of 1950 was dismissed with costs. - In A.S. No. 500 of 1950, the decree of the lower court was modified to reflect that one-half of the coffee estate is joint family property of Bheemayya and thus liable for partition. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs in the appeal and in the lower court.
|
