1997 (3) TMI 642 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to partition and separate possession of property.
2. Nature of the suit properties (self-acquired vs. joint family property).
3. Application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
4. Burden of proof regarding benami transactions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Partition and Separate Possession of Property:
The plaintiff, the daughter of Kesava Padayachi and Solaiammal (1st defendant), filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The learned trial Judge passed a preliminary decree granting the plaintiff her 1/3rd share, asserting that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of Kesava Padayachi.

2. Nature of the Suit Properties:
The plaintiff claimed that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of her father, Kesava Padayachi. The defendants contended that the properties were joint family properties, acquired from the income of properties inherited from Appaswamy Padayachi. The trial court held that the suit properties were self-acquired by Kesava Padayachi, and items standing in the name of the 1st defendant were purchased benami by Kesava Padayachi.

3. Application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988:
The learned single Judge, on appeal, applied the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, ruling that the plaintiff could not assert a benami claim for properties standing in the name of the 1st defendant. The judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside regarding these properties, holding them to belong exclusively to the 1st defendant.

4. Burden of Proof Regarding Benami Transactions:
The plaintiff argued that the properties in the name of the 1st defendant were held benami for the family. The defendants countered that the plaintiff failed to provide acceptable evidence to substantiate the benami claim. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the person asserting the benami transaction. The court noted that the plaintiff did not produce documentary evidence, and the evidence provided was insufficient to prove the benami claim.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, upholding the learned single Judge's decision. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to substantiate her claim that the properties in the name of the 1st defendant were held benami for the family. The general presumption favored the 1st defendant, asserting that the properties were purchased for her benefit and welfare by her husband, Kesava Padayachi. The judgment and decree of the learned single Judge were sustained, and the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed without costs.