2022 (3) TMI 1612 - HC - Benami Property

Benami transaction - Real owner - payment of kist by the plaintiff s father Jayarama Reddy and the plaintiff - case made for declaration of title based on the so called Benami transaction or not? - plaintiff is claiming title on the ground that Chinnamma Reddy was only a Benamidar and the actual owner of the property is his father Jayarama Reddy. As submitted that the appellant was putting forward two mutually destructive grounds viz. title based on Benami and adverse possession HELD THAT - Law always presumes that the name of the person which is found in the document is taken to be the owner of the property that is dealt with under the document. The plea of benami is an exception to this rule and hence heavy burden lies on the person who pleads that the recorded owner is a benami-holder. The Court cannot assume a benami transaction through mere conjectures or surmises and it can never be a substitute for the proof which rests on the shoulder of the person who asserts that the transaction is a benami transaction. The essence of a benami transaction is the intention of the parties concerned at the time of entering into the transaction. Such an intention cannot be spoken to by any other person who is not a party to the transaction. In the present case, the sale had taken place on 26.6.1930. The so called ostensible owner viz. Jayarama Reddy during his lifetime never claimed or asserted that the sale was a benami transaction and that Chinnamma Reddy was only a benami holder, in any proceedings before any authority or Court. He died in the year 1964. For the first time, the plaintiff who is the son of Jayarama Reddy asserted that Chinnamma Reddy was a benami holder when the suit was filed in the year 1982. At the time when the plaintiff deposed as a witness in the year 2002, his age is recorded as 70 years. If this age is taken into consideration, the plaintiff would not even have born at the time when the transaction took place. This plea was taken in the suit for the first time, after 52 years from the date of execution of the sale deed and after 18 years after the death of Jayarama Reddy. Even Chinnamma Reddy in whose name the sale deed was executed in the year 1930 was not alive. Therefore, the persons who could have been the best evidence to speak about the transaction that took place in the year 1930, were not available when the evidence was taken in the suit. It is under these circumstances, the plaintiff who is the son of Jayarama Reddy has come forward with the plea of benami transaction. Therefore, there is a very heavy burden on the plaintiff to prove that the sale deed Ex.A1 was executed in the name of Chinnamma Reddy who was only a benami holder and that the actual owner is his father Jayarama Reddy. Lower Appellate Court took into consideration all the facts and circumstances cumulatively and found that Ex.A1 sale deed dated 26.6.1930 is not a benami transaction and such a plea taken by the plaintiff has not been proved. While rendering the findings, the Lower Appellate Court had taken into consideration the six circumstances which was given as a guide by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Lower Appellate Court has properly analysed the oral and documentary evidence and had rendered its findings and this Court does not find any perversity in those findings. Even assuming that another view is possible on re-appreciation of the same evidence, that cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding of the Lower Appellate Court in exercise of the power and jurisdiction conferred under Section 100 of C.P.C. The 1st and 2nd substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. On a cumulative reading of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that the plaintiff was brought up by his in-laws and was provided with education when he was staying with them and was given an opportunity to become an advocate to practice law. He was also permitted to represent the defendants in various proceedings. The plaintiff decided to make use of the situation and the availability of the original sale deed Ex. A1. The plaintiff has successfully dragged the defendants for a litigation which is pending for the last 40 years. Hopefully, the agony faced by the defendants will come to an end with the final judgment passed in this Second Appeal. This Court does not find any merits in this Second Appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the transaction covered by Ex.A1 Sale Deed dated 26.06.1930 is a benami transaction.
2. Whether the payment of kist by the plaintiff's father Jayarama Reddy and the plaintiff can be taken as evidence of ownership.
3. Whether the First Appellate Court's judgment should be set aside for failing to formulate points for determination.
4. Whether the First Appellate Court's judgment should be set aside for failing to discuss the additional evidence adduced before it.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of title and permanent injunction or delivery of possession.
6. Whether the suit is maintainable under the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988.
7. Whether the suit is maintainable under limitation.
8. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.
9. Whether the defendants had the right and title to sell or gift the suit property.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Benami Transaction:
The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was purchased by his father, Jayarama Reddy, in the name of his brother-in-law, Chinnamma Reddy, as a benami transaction. The Lower Appellate Court found no proof of this claim. It noted that the plaintiff's father never asserted this during his lifetime, and the plaintiff raised this issue 52 years after the transaction and 18 years after his father's death. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof for a benami transaction lies heavily on the claimant and that mere conjectures or surmises cannot substitute for proof. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements of a benami transaction, including the source of the purchase money, possession, and motive.

2. Payment of Kist:
The plaintiff presented kist receipts in his father's name and his own name as evidence of ownership. However, the Lower Appellate Court held that these receipts did not substantiate the plaintiff's claim, especially since the patta stood in the name of Chinnamma Reddy. The Court found that the mere payment of kist did not prove ownership, particularly when the patta was not in the plaintiff's father's name.

3. Formulation of Points for Determination:
The appellant argued that the First Appellate Court failed to formulate points for determination. The Lower Appellate Court had dealt with every issue framed by the Trial Court, making the formulation of points for determination irrelevant. The Court answered this additional substantial question of law by stating that the Appellate Court's approach was sufficient and comprehensive.

4. Discussion of Additional Evidence:
The appellant contended that the First Appellate Court did not discuss the additional evidence. The Court noted that while the judgment lacked a list of documents and witnesses, it had considered the additional evidence. The Court found that the absence of these lists did not prejudice the appellant and did not affect the judgment's validity. This additional substantial question of law was answered by affirming the Appellate Court's consideration of the evidence.

5. Declaration of Title and Permanent Injunction:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of title and a permanent injunction or delivery of possession. The Lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiff did not establish his title through a benami transaction or adverse possession. The Court also noted the lack of clear pleading regarding when the defendants took possession, which was crucial for determining the relief of possession. The Court held against the plaintiff on these grounds.

6. Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988:
The Court did not find the suit barred under the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988, as the transaction in question occurred long before the Act came into force. However, the plaintiff's failure to prove the benami nature of the transaction rendered this issue moot.

7. Limitation:
The Court addressed the issue of limitation by noting the absence of clear pleadings regarding the defendants' possession. The plaintiff's failure to specify when the defendants took possession undermined his claim for possession, leading the Court to rule against him on the limitation issue.

8. Possession of the Suit Property:
The Court found that the plaintiff did not establish his possession of the suit property. The lack of clear evidence and the plaintiff's contradictory claims weakened his case. The Court concluded that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property.

9. Defendants' Right and Title:
The defendants argued that they had the right and title to sell or gift the suit property. The Court found that the defendants' transactions were valid, as the plaintiff failed to prove his title or possession. The Court upheld the defendants' right to transfer the property.

Conclusion:
The Second Appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the Lower Appellate Court's judgment. The Court found no merit in the plaintiff's claims and emphasized the heavy burden of proof required to establish a benami transaction. The Court also highlighted the limitations of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC, noting that it could not interfere with factual findings unless they were perverse or based on no evidence.