2022 (5) TMI 263 - HC - Benami Property

Benami transactions - beneficial/Real owner of property - plaintiff has to establish that he has purchased the property in the name of wife or that he is holding the said property as a trustee for the benefit of his elder brother and the wives of the two brothers - HELD THAT - We have not been shown any evidence which would prove that the said property was purchased out of the fund of the appellants or the conduct of the parties are such which would create an impression that the property was purchased for the benefit of Chanchal Kumar Dutta and wives of the two brothers. On the contrary, D.W.-1 has categorically admitted that Chanchal Kumar Dutta is the co-sharer in respect of the property over which Sanat Kumar Dutta is claiming absolute ownership. D.W.-1 is the wife of Sanat Kumar Dutta. Moreover, as noticed earlier D.W.-1 has admitted to have received fund from Chanchal Kumar Dutta to raise certain constructions in the house which would demolish the case of exclusivity of Sanat Kumar Dutta in relation to the property in question. We have carefully examined the evidence. We do not find from evidence that the appellants have able to satisfy the aforesaid two conditions in claiming as the true owner of the suit property. On such lack of evidence and establishing his right over the property as owner thereof or that such consideration money was paid by him alone, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
2. Determination of ownership rights in a suit for partition.
3. Application of guidelines from the judgment of Binapani Paul Vs. Pratima Ghosh & Ors.
4. Burden of proof in establishing a transaction as benami.

Interpretation of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988:
The appeal challenged a preliminary decree in a partition suit where a counter-claim was rejected. The counter-claimant alleged that the property was purchased by the appellants in the name of another individual and two brothers' wives. The counter-claim was based on the assertion that the property was acquired with the plaintiff's money. The appellants argued that the property should be considered the exclusive property of the counter-claimant under the unamended provisions of the Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. However, the court noted that the plaintiff needed to establish purchasing the property in the name of the wife or as a trustee for his brother and sisters-in-law.

Determination of ownership rights in a suit for partition:
The court considered the evidence presented, including the failure to prove the purchase was made with the appellants' funds or that the property was intended for the benefit of the counter-claimant and his family. The court found that the evidence did not establish the counter-claimant's exclusive ownership over the property, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against the preliminary decree in the partition suit.

Application of guidelines from Binapani Paul judgment:
The appellants referred to the Binapani Paul judgment and the six guidelines mentioned in Paragraph 47 to argue their case. However, the court found that the circumstances outlined in the guidelines were not proven by the plaintiff. These guidelines included aspects such as the source of purchase money, nature of possession post-purchase, motives for a benami transaction, relationships between parties, custody of title deeds, and post-sale conduct regarding the property.

Burden of proof in establishing a transaction as benami:
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the appellants to establish the transaction as benami. Despite the arguments presented, the court concluded that there was a lack of evidence to support the counter-claimant's exclusive ownership over the property. The court found no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision in Title Suit No.45 of 2013, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the appeal against the preliminary decree in the partition suit was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing ownership rights and meeting the burden of proof in cases involving benami transactions, as per the relevant legal provisions and judicial guidelines.