2015 (10) TMI 2780 - SC - Benami Property

Benami purchase of property - purchase of property by a husband in the name of his wife is a specie of Benami purchase - Did the suit property belong to Jagannath Joshi or his wife Moni Debi? - HELD THAT - High Court was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the property though purchased from the funds of Jagannath was really for the benefit of his widow Moni Debi and therefore Moni Debi was the real owner of the property. In this regard the entries of the name of Moni Debi in Municipal and Land Revenue records; the fact that the brothers of Jagannath were no longer alive (according to the plaintiff the property was purchased by Jagannath in the name of his wife to protect the same from his brothers) are relevant facts that have been rightly taken into account by the High Court. The fact that the property was managed by Jagannath which fact accords with the practice prevailing in a Hindu family where the husband normally looks after and manages the property of the wife, is another relevant circumstance that was taken note of by the High Court to come to the conclusion that all the said established facts are wholly consistent with the ownership of the property by Moni Debi. We have no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the High Court that the property was owned by Moni Debi although consideration money for the same may have been made available by her husband, Jagannath. Validity of the adoption of Sitaram, the husband of the original plaintiff, as claimed by the plaintiff in the suit - The letter dated 20.7.1945 (Exb.2) does not lead to any clear/firm conclusion with regard to the adoption of Sitaram and had been rightly discarded by the High Court. In the above conspectus of facts the evidence of the plaintiff regarding the adoption of her husband stands isolated and cannot, on its own, sustain a positive conclusion that her husband Sitaram was adopted by Jagannath. If the suit property was owned by Moni Debi and not by Jagannath and Sitaram was not the adopted son of Moni Debi and Jagannath it must be held that the suit property devolved on Gomati on the death of Moni Debi. The claim of the defendant No.1 to be the adopted son of Gomati could have been challenged only by such legal heirs on whom the property would have devolved following the death of Gomati in the event the adoption of the defendant No. 1 is to be held to be invalid. In this context, the next legal heir who would have been entitled to succeed to the property of Gomati Debi if the adoption of defendant No.1 is to be treated as invalid would not be the original plaintiff inasmuch there was another heir who could have claimed a better title in such a situation, namely, one Chouthamal Sharma, the son of one of the brother s of Sitaram. No such challenge was made by the aforesaid legal heir who had a better/preferential claim. In view of the above position demonstrated by the evidence on record the High Court was fully justified in not entering into the issue of validity of the adoption of defendant No.1 or the gift deed executed in his favour by Gomati as the said issues had become redundant/inconsequential for the reasons noted above. We have to hold that these appeals are without any merit.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the suit property.
2. Legality of the adoption of Sitaram Joshi.
3. Legality of the adoption of Rajendra Prasad Shewda and the validity of the gift deed executed in his favor.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1) Ownership of the Suit Property:
The primary question was whether the suit property belonged to Jagannath Joshi or his wife Moni Debi. The original plaintiff, Kishori Debi Joshi, claimed that Jagannath Joshi purchased the property with his funds in the name of Moni Debi, making her a mere name lender. However, the defendant contended that the property was bought for Moni Debi's benefit to provide her security, as Hindu widows did not have full ownership rights at that time. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating the property belonged to Jagannath Joshi. However, the High Court reversed this decision, concluding that the property was not a benami purchase and that Moni Debi was the real owner. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the property, though purchased with Jagannath's funds, was intended for Moni Debi's benefit, making her the true owner.

2) Legality of the Adoption of Sitaram Joshi:
The plaintiff claimed that Sitaram Joshi, her deceased husband, was legally adopted by Jagannath Joshi and Moni Debi. The trial court accepted this claim, but the High Court found otherwise. The Supreme Court reiterated the caution required in adoption claims, citing previous judgments that emphasized the need for clear, consistent, and fraud-free evidence. The evidence presented by the plaintiff, including testimonies and a letter, was deemed insufficient and inconsistent. The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the adoption of Sitaram Joshi, thus negating his claim to the property through adoption.

3) Legality of the Adoption of Rajendra Prasad Shewda and the Validity of the Gift Deed:
The defendant, Rajendra Prasad Shewda, claimed to be the adopted son of Gomati Debi and presented a gift deed executed in his favor. The trial court acknowledged his adoption and granted him a share of the property. However, the High Court did not delve into the validity of his adoption or the gift deed, as it determined that the original plaintiff had no subsisting right to the property after Gomati Debi's death. The Supreme Court agreed with this approach, noting that the property would have devolved on Gomati Debi upon Moni Debi's death, and since Sitaram Joshi was not legally adopted, the plaintiff had no claim. Any challenge to Rajendra Prasad Shewda's adoption should have come from other legal heirs, who did not contest it. Therefore, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals and affirmed the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeals without costs.