Benami Transaction

The first element is that there must be an agreement express or implied between the ostensible owner and the purchaser for purchase of the property in the name of ostensible owner for the benefit of the person who has to make payment of the consideration, and second element required to be proved is that transaction was actually entered between the real purchaser and seller to which ostensible owner was not party.

Appellants / plaintiff's claimed that suit properties were Benami transactions in favour of respondent / defendant, who was their real mother

Contention of appellants / plaintiffs was that they had been deprived of their legal share by respondent / defendant who was just an ostensible owner

Validity

Attributes of "Benami transaction", in reality means a transaction in the name of another person to describe and express a transaction of a property who holds that property as an ostensible owner for its beneficial owner

In fact, it is a genre of transaction where somebody recompenses for the property but does not get hold of it in his personal name

Person in whose name such type of property is purchased is called Benamidar and the property so purchased is called Benami property

Despite the fact a Benami property is purchased in the name of someone else, the person who sponsored the transaction is the real owner

By and large, the assets acquired in the name of spouse or a child for which the money is paid from known sources of income is called Benami property

Onerous sense of duty lies on the party who raises plea of Benami transaction to prove by adducing unimpeachable evidence

Court is not required to decide such pleas on the basis of mere suspicion

Mode and manner of transaction is to be established by corroborating intentions of parties at the relevant time which could be congregated from surrounding circumstances such as relationship/association of parties, the motive or aspiration implicit in transactions including subsequent comportment and factum of possession of the property and custody of title documents

Best possible evidence could have been adduced by deceased himself if he had any dispute with regard to title of properties which he never raised in his lifetime

Even if properties were purchased through funds or resources of deceased husband, then both husband and wife were privy to such arrangements/transactions in their own marital relationship

After passing of several years, children could not question or challenge title or ownership of properties in the name of their mother without any cogent proof or trustworthy evidence that she was actually an ostensible owner

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed.

The first element is that there must be an agreement express or implied between the ostensible owner and the purchaser for purchase of the property in the name of ostensible owner for the benefit of the person who has to make payment of the consideration; and second element required to be proved is that transaction was actually entered between the real purchaser and seller to which ostensible owner was not a party.

Plaintiffs claimed that defendants were benami owners of suit properties whereas their deceased father was the actual owner

Validity

Suit properties were standing in the names of persons who were made so entitled by deceased father of plaintiffs with his own freewill

Source of consideration was not denied to also have come from him

Custody of original title documents along with legal possession thereof was also available with the owners and no motive for benami transaction had come forward

Plaintiffs failed to bring any material evidence in support thereof except verbal assertions from a witness who was not a family member at the relevant time

Evidence of such witness was not based upon personal knowledge

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff claimed that suit property was purchased by her deceased husband in the name of his younger brother/defendant as Benami owner

Validity

Benami transaction means a transaction in the name of another person to describe and express a transaction of a property who holds the property as ostensible owner for its beneficial owner

In fact it is a genre of transaction where somebody recompenses for the property but does not get hold of it in his personal name

Person in whose name such type of property is purchased is called Benamidar and the property so purchased is called Benami property

Despite the fact a Benami property is purchased on the name of someone else, the person who sponsors the transaction is the real owner

Assets acquired in the name of spouse or a child for which money is paid from known sources of income is called Benami property

Burden of proving whether a particular person is a Benamidar is upon the person alleging the same

Defendant purchased suit property and in such respect he introduced on record Sale Agreement, Transfer Deed, Transfer Letter issued by KDA showing that the title documents were in his possession which were produced in evidence by him

No original documents of like nature were produced by plaintiff in the name of her deceased husband in respect of suit house

Claim of plaintiff that her deceased husband was actual owner was not proved

Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

To accept a challenge on ground of a property as Benami one would require certain facts/circumstances which an actual owner otherwise would establish:

Appellant / defendant contended that he was actual owner in possession of suit property and suit filed by respondent / plaintiff was barred by limitation

Validity

Entire chain of title documents and other related documents were in possession of appellant / defendant who was the actual seller of suit property

Deal to sell suit property was also transacted between appellant / defendant and husband of the seller but for reasons known to them they both chose to have their respective spouses in the front

Respondent / plaintiff might have been aware that appellant / defendant surreptitiously transferred the property in his name but the couple was happily married at the time of purchase

Parties had a few children, both before and after the event

Respondent / plaintiff not insisting at that point in time to have the conveyance deed cancelled to the extent of 50% share was understandable

It was when appellant / defendant denied her the right to access and enjoy the property that the cause of action arose

Suit was not barred by limitation

Suit property was bought by appellant / defendant from his own money, who was owner of the apartment whereas respondent / plaintiff was only shown as an ostensible owner in terms of sale agreement/power of attorney

Appellant / defendant also bought another property with his funds and had the original title documents with him

Respondent / plaintiff failed to produce meaningful evidence in support of her case

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Plaintiffs claimed transfer of suit property to their names as per their shares on the plea that their deceased mother was the real owner of suit property while predecessor-in-interest of defendants was only Benamidar

Validity

Burden of proving whether a particular person is a Benamidar lies upon the person alleging it

Main consideration, as one would expect boils down to the source of funds but source of funds are not always conclusive and significant factor to prove real ownership, though it may prima facie show that the person who provided money did not intend to relinquish or give up the beneficial interest in the property

Some additional factors are also needed to be considered i.e. possession of title documents; conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property once it is purchased; who administers and oversees the property; and who is recognized as title holder in general

Plot was transferred in the name of predecessor-in-interest of defendants who on the very next day communicated to the Housing Society that predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs was lawful owner of the plot

Predecessor-in-interest of defendants also addressed different letters to predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs for payment of development charges, ground rent and such other ancillaries which were paid by herself

Such letters along with payment receipts were exhibited in evidence by plaintiffs, who turned out to be the lawful owner of suit plot after the demise of the original plaintiff by way of inheritance

High Court directed the Housing Society to transfer/mutate plot in question in the names of the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff

Suit was decreed accordingly.

Essential characteristics of a benami transaction stated.

Evidentiary requirements for proving a benami transaction stated.

Case of defendants was that the suit property was in fact purchased by their father and that the name of plaintiff appeared in the sale deed as Benamidar

Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently decreed the suit

Validity

Plaintiff had established that he had paid the sale consideration whereas the defendants' evidence was based on hearsay

Defendants had not even alleged any motive what to speak of proving the same that what consideration prompted their common predecessor to purchase the property in the name of the plaintiff

Plaintiff had prima facie proved that he was in possession of the suit property

Financial position of the plaintiff had not been challenged by the defendants

Two courts below had concurrently recorded their findings of facts and law as against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff, which High Court found as perfectly in accordance with available evidence of the parties

Revision petition was dismissed.

No incriminating material was confronted in summons and no notice or proceedings under Ss. 18, 21 & 22 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017, respectively were disclosed

Powers under S. 18 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017, could be exercised only after taking cognizance of the matter under the law

At initial stage summons were not envisaged under S. 21 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017

After insertion of Arts. 19A & 10A in the Constitution, it could not be termed as notice under S. 22 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017

It was fundamental right of a person proceeded against under law that information regarding mandatory proceedings and necessary information/material requiring action under the law was duly provided and confronted in show-cause notice

Any notice proposing legal action under the law was not enforceable if it lacked mandatory details

High Court declared that summons for calling petitioner to give statement and affidavit was without jurisdiction and in absence of any lawful authority

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Plaintiff/petitioner (government school teacher) sought declaration that his brother (defendant/respondent) be declared as 'benamidar' contending that he was the actual purchaser/owner of suit-property

Motive expressed by the plaintiff/petitioner was that he, being a government servant, could not hold property in his name and also that he had litigation with his wife

Validity

In order to ascertain if the transaction was 'benami' or otherwise, there were important ingredients which needed proof or disproof

Said ingredients were motive; source of money with which the property was purchased; the possession of the property ; the conduct of the parties as to how the property was dealt with; and possession of the original title document

Initial burden of proof was on the party who alleged that ostensible owner was a 'benamidar' for him

Burden of proof could shift from one party to the other during the course of trial of suit but that burden could only be shifted once the initial burden was discharged by the plaintiff

No evidence was on record that consideration paid emanated from any monetary source of the petitioner

Petitioner had only produced certified copies of the title in favour of the respondent, which could hardly be considered to the test as from whose custody the original documents came in evidence

None of the friends of the petitioner/plaintiff appeared to support his version

Petitioner had also failed to satisfy as to why the possession was handed over to the respondent which throughout remained with him

Petitioner/plaintiff was bound to seek strength from his own case

School teacher was not such a sensitive post that the petitioner could not purchase the property in his own name

Having a dispute with his wife would give no justification or reason to the petitioner to purchase the property in the name of his (plaintiff') brother as 'benamidar', therefore, the said story seemed to be concocted and not reliable

Even no documentary proof was produced to justify the motive

No illegality or infirmity was found in the both the decree and judgment passed by the Courts below

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Applicants filed a suit for declaration claiming therein that their predecessor was sole owner of the suit property and the same was owned in the name of respondents as ostensible owners

Trial Court decreed the suit whereas Appellate Court dismissed the suit

Validity

Applicants had produced relevant documents starting from 1953-54 till 1963-64, land revenue receipts, number shumari and field book of the suit property, whereas, the respondents could not rebut or challenge such documents

Applicants had also established that they had raised construction on the suit land

Possession all along had been enjoyed by the applicants

Respondents were acting as benami owners of the suit property

Revision application was allowed, judgment of Appellate Court was set aside and that of Trial Court was restored.

Number of factors were to be considered to determine the question whether a particular transaction is benami in character but perhaps the most crucial factors, in the criminal law context are, first, who is in actual possession, or control of possession, of the property, and second, who receives the profits arising out of the property.

Respondent-plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property while petitioner-defendant was shown just Benamidar in year 1964 at the time when property was purchased

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently decreed suit and appeal in favour of respondent-plaintiff

Plea raised by respondent-plaintiff was that concurrent findings of Courts below could not be disturbed by High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction provided under S.115, C.P.C.

Validity

Suit was instituted after more than forty years of attestation of sale deed

Maximum period of six years had been provided under Art. 120 of Limitation Act, 1908, to seek a right

Since inception of litigation it was stance of petitioner-plaintiff that he engineered subject sale deed

When it had been known to petitioner-plaintiff since birth of document, then he took forty three years to file the suit and there was no plausible ground either introduced in plaint or explored through available evidence

Suit was barred by time and law was to help the vigilant and not the indolent

Judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below were result of misreading / non-reading of evidence as well as non-adherence to law laid down by superior Courts

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of two Courts below and dismissed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Execution of instrument in such cases, is an admitted fact and seeker intends just rectification of document so as to eliminate/exclude name of Benamidar.

Suit for declaration and injunction was filed by respondent/ plaintiff claiming that suit property in the name of appellant/defendant was held Benami for her deceased husband who was father of respondent/plaintiff

Suit was decreed in favour of respondent/ plaintiff

Validity

No material was brought on record to support the assertion of Benami arrangement inter se the deceased and appellant/defendant his wife or demonstrated that deceased mainly provided funds through which disputed properties had been acquired

Findings of Single Judge of High Court as to funding was predicated entirely on inferences drawn from disparate excepts from oral evidence tendered

Other than bare assertion in plaint that disputed properties had been purchased/financed by deceased in the name of his widow as Benami properties, there was no further elucidation as to motive underpinning alleged Benami arrangement or even as to details/mechanics of relevant transactions

Division Bench of High Court set aside judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court as it suffered from material infirmities which had gone to root of the matter

Division Bench of High Court dismissed suit filed by respondent/plaintiff

Intra Court Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against the defendant (his sister) and sought declaration that he was real owner of the suit property and that the defendant being ostensible owner/benamidar was liable to re-convey the sale deed in his favour

Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently dismissed the suit

Validity

Plaintiff had disclosed his job description and his initial salary amount in his plaint

Plaintiff had also disclosed in his plaint that before purchasing the house in question he and his family were residing in a rented house, therefore, he purchased the house in question in the name of his mother

Purchasing house in the name of female family members was not unusual

Plaintiff had produced documentary evidence in original, two supportive witnesses and had also led his own evidence before the Trial Court with no cross-examination

Defendant had not appeared before the Court to deny the plaintiff's claim or produce her own relevant documents

Petitioner had proved benami transaction by proving source of consideration, motive for benami transaction, real intention of the parties, possession and production of original title documents

Suit was decreed, in circumstances.

Allegation against accused was that he was an associate of the main accused on whose behalf he was acting as Director of a company; that shares of the company were transferred in the name of accused in order to obtain a fraudulent finance facility from a bank; that the company misappropriated the amount of finance facility and the accused possessed the crime proceeds and subsequently transferred such proceeds in various other accounts

Held that nothing was placed by the NAB on record to establish that the consideration for acquisition of shares of the company had not been paid by the accused or that such consideration had been paid by another person, bringing transactions in the shares of the company within the definition of 'benami transaction' under S. 2(8) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017

National Accountability Bureau had not even bothered to collect share-transfer deeds recording the trial of sale of shares from previous members of the company to present members, in order to determine whether or not such transactions were made subject to payment of consideration

Record did not reflect that the accused was a 'benamidar' within the meaning of S. 5(da) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Constitutional petition was allowed and the accused was admitted to pre-arrest bail, in circumstances.

In order to prove Benami Transaction, source of income; custody of title documents; possession of property; and motive of transaction, have to be proved through confidence inspiring evidence.

Application for temporary injunction was dismissed accordingly.

Plaintiff assailed proceedings initiated by authorities and his bank accounts were attached on the allegations that those were Benami

Contention of plaintiff was that earlier no show cause notice was issued and to make up the deficiency the same was made up afterwards

Validity

Alleging show cause notice made up afterwards was an allegation of mala fides-in-fact on initiating officer as the same was distinct from mala fide-in-law and such was not the case of plaintiff to begin with

Apart from such vague allegation of mala fides, plaint did not specifically allege that actions of initiating officer were colored or motivated for extraneous reasons or that he was biased against plaintiff

Before allegation of mala fides could be allowed to be proved, mala fides were to be pleaded with particularity and till such time, a presumption of correctness was attached to official acts

Initiating officer was empowered under S.22(5) of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017, to attach related property, therefore, plaintiff could not claim to have been prejudiced

Plaintiff failed to raise any ground that could constitute exception to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction by special fora prescribed under Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017

Under implied bar to jurisdiction of High Court that arose by reason of existence of special fora to determine matters arising under Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017

Plaint was rejected in circumstances.

Plaintiff, who was a foreign national, contended that he had supplied the funds to his deceased brother for the purchase of plot as well as construction thereon

Held, that transfer of funds for the purpose of purchasing subject property had been mentioned by the plaintiff in his cross-examination, wherein he admitted that he had remitted the money to Pakistan through 'hundi' system

Plaintiff was a person of sound financial means, whereas legatees of the deceased brother could not present any evidence relating to any substantial source of income of their father to purchase a costly residential unit such as the subject property

Testimony of deceased brother's widow suggested that the plaintiff had arranged the funds for his deceased brother to manage a residence for his family; that plaintiff's brothers jointly resided in the subject property, and that subject premises was the permanent residential address in plaintiff's National Identity Card

Totality of circumstances, reflected from the evidence unambiguously suggested a joint possession over the premises that included the plaintiff, who stayed therein on his visits to Pakistan

Plaintiff's foreign residency and his admitted financial status appeared to have been a dominant consideration behind his delegation of the task to his deceased brother to conveniently transact the deal on his behalf

Deceased brother had also executed a stamp paper in his life wherein it was acknowledged that plaintiff had provided the funds for the subject property and that it was a benami transaction in favour of the deceased brother

Stamp vendor appeared as a witness to confirm purchase of stamp paper by the deceased brother, which was executed in plaintiff's favour

Another real brother of the deceased as well as the plaintiff testified about the execution of the stamp paper as well as provision of funds by the plaintiff for the subject property

Burden had satisfactorily been discharged by the plaintiff to establish that his deceased brother was merely an ostensible player, with resources assigned by the plaintiff to conveniently manage the purchase of land for construction of a house thereon

Declaratory suit filed by the plaintiff had been rightly decreed in his favour by courts below

Appeal was dismissed.

Contention of plaintiff was that he had paid consideration amount of suit property and defendant was Benamidar and impugned mutation was based on fraud

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Plaintiff was bound to prove that transaction in favour of defendant was Benami and fraud had been committed

Plaintiff had failed to discharge the said onus through cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence

No witness had been produced in whose presence the amount of consideration had been paid on behalf of plaintiff

Plaintiff had not asserted the time, date, month, year or place when consideration amount had been paid on his behalf

Defendant was working abroad for the last many years and he had constructed a house on the suit land and his family had been residing therein

Burden to prove fraud would be on the person who had alleged fraud

Plaintiff had failed to discharge the said burden

Plaintiff had failed to prove through tangible evidence that disputed sale transaction was a 'Benami' transaction

Mere oral assertion on the part of plaintiff qua the disputed transaction without any independent and cogent evidence could not be believed

Defendant had proved that suit land had been purchased by him from his own pocket and house had been constructed where his family was residing

No illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstance.

Ingredients of Benami transaction were motive, consideration, possession of property and possession of original documents.

Contention of plaintiffs was that they were owners of suit property and impugned transaction in favour of defendant was Benami

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Initial burden of proof was on the party who had alleged that the ostensible owner was a Benamidar for him

Weakness in the defence evidence would not relieve plaintiff from discharging the said burden

Burden of proof might shift from one party to the other during the trial of a suit

When burden of proof was shifted from plaintiff to defendant and defendant failed to discharge the same then plaintiff would succeed

Plaintiffs, in the present case, had failed to discharge the initial onus of proof

Courts below had rightly non-suited the plaintiffs, in circumstance

No illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Court below

Revision was dismissed in limine accordingly.

If dispute is between third party on one hand and real owner and benamidar on other hand, then its consideration would lose its importance

Conduct of parties and surrounding circumstances in such a situation, are to be kept in view

To determine whether a transaction was a benami one or not, source of consideration money and possession of title documents are essential elements to determine nature of transaction

Where dispute arose between benamidar and real owner or in case of third party some traits for benami transaction are; (i) source of consideration; (ii) from whose custody original title deed of property is produced and who possesses prior deed by which vendors proved their own title; (iii) who is in possession of property and; (iv) motive for benami transaction

Benami being neither a law nor rule, extreme caution is to be observed when a genuine transaction is to be made in good faith

Said facts are to be taken into consideration to arrive at a just and fair conclusion whether transaction is benami or not.

Ingredients.

Ingredients of Benami transaction were motive, consideration, possession of property and possession of original documents.

Contention of plaintiff was that suit property was purchased by her father and same had been transferred in favour of defendant as a Benamidar out of love and affection and she was entitled for half share from the said property

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Suit property was in the name of defendant from its inception

Vendee had neither claimed his ownership with regard to suit property nor had considered the same in the name of defendant as Benamidar in his lifetime

Plaintiff had no locus standi to challenge impugned transaction as she had not inherited any sort of ownership from the legacy of her father

Vendee-father of plaintiff had not instituted any suit during his life time with regard to impugned transaction

Cogent and unimpeachable evidence was required to determine the transaction as Benami in nature which was missing in the present case

No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Impugned judgments were in consonance with law

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

No convincing evidence was produced by claimants (legal heirs of plaintiff) that they were residing in the subject property as its real owners

Claimants (legal heirs of plaintiff) had never remained in continuous physical possession and even if claimants (legal heirs of plaintiff) had resided in subject property for some time, that was because of close relationship of sister and brother

Basic ingredients required by claimants (legal heirs of plaintiff) to succeed in benami claim of the nature, which was an indirect benami claim, were completely lacking

Claimant (legal heirs of plaintiff) did not purchase subject property way back in year 1957 because she herself was a minor at relevant time

Claimants (legal heirs of plaintiff) failed to prove raising of construction by her father

Claimants (legal heirs of plaintiff) failed to prove that at any point of time in their income/funds were utilized in construction of subject property

Original title documents were provided by defendant and claimants (legal heirs of plaintiff) only produced photocopy of original title in their evidence

Authenticity of record produced by official witness was not challenged by claimants (legal heirs of plaintiff)

Presumption of genuineness according to Arts. 92 & 129, illustration (e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were also attracted to record produced by official witness

No plausible answer was given by claimants (legal heirs of plaintiff) that for not filing proceedings during lifetime of deceased, who admittedly purchased property in name of objector (brother of plaintiff) particularly when ownership lease was executed in favour of objector (brother of plaintiff) without objection from claimant (legal heirs of plaintiff)

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Lower Appellate Court as it had no material irregularity

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Initial burden to prove a benami transaction is on party that took plea of Benami.

Plaintiffs claimed to be actual owners of house in question as same was purchased by their predecessor-in-interest and asserted that defendant was just a benami owner on their behalf

Trial Court dismissed suit of plaintiffs while defendant sought recovery of possession through an independent suit which was decreed

Validity

Defendant admitted that between year 1989 and 1996, house in question was used to be given on rent by plaintiffs and/or their sons with consent of defendant

Defendant also asserted that after he returned from abroad rent was paid to him, however, he took position that in year 1996 house in question was given on rent without his consent and it was not until 1998 that he filed suit for possession

Defendant contradicted himself by deposing that he along with his family lived in house in question until 1995 whereafter he went abroad and his family moved with plaintiffs

Too many contradictions existed between pleadings and evidence of defendant but weaknesses in his case did not have consequence of decreeing suit of plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they were beneficial owners of suit property

Initial burden of proof was on party who alleged that an ostensible owner was a benamidar for him

Weaknesses in defense evidence could not relieve plaintiff from discharging burden of proof on him

Plaintiffs were unable to establish that they were in possession of house in question as well as title documents

Plaintiffs were unable to prove that their predecessor-in-interest provided funds for purchase of house in question and motive to enter into benami transaction

High Court declined to interfere in quantum of compensation held by Trial Court to be payable to defendant between 1998 until he got possession of house in question as defendant failed to prove that such compensation was in any manner inadequate

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Motive on part of person who claims to have advanced sale consideration plays an important role in determining nature of transaction

Principles for determination as to whether transaction was benami, stated.

While seeking declaration that transaction for purchase of property is benami in nature, it is important for plaintiff not just to plead that he in possession of title documents but also to produce same in his evidence.

Principles.

Guiding factors enumerated.

Burden of proving that a particular sale was Benami and that purchaser was not the ostensible owner would be on the person who had asserted it to be so

Said burden would be discharged by adducing evidence of a definite character

Party alleging plea of Benami must prove that the purchase money was provided by the real owner and not by the ostensible owner

When suit property was purchased the plaintiffs were students and could not be expected to have the sources to make the purchase

Plaintiffs had not produced any documentary evidence in order to discharge their burden that their father had purchased the suit property

Title document of suit property had been issued on 31-03-1975 i.e. prior to enactment of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and only one attesting witness was sufficient to prove the execution of said document

Title document of suit property was in the possession of defendant

Motive for Benami transaction was ambiguous and vague

Impugned judgment and decree passed by Trial Court were set aside and suit was dismissed.

Contention of plaintiff was that he was owner of suit property and impugned transaction in favour of defendant was Benami

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Requirements; to prove Benami transaction were source of consideration; custody of original title deed; possession of suit property and motive for Benami transaction

Plaintiff except possession had failed to prove the rest of the ingredients of Benami transaction

No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below was found

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Ingredients of Benami transaction were motive; consideration; possession of property and possession of original documents.

No cogent and convincing evidence had been produced before the Trial Court as to why the land in question was purchased in the name of defendant as Benami

Alleged sale deed was executed in the year 1964 and till the death of father of plaintiff same was not challenged

Present suit was filed in the year 1994 which was time-barred

Suit had rightly been dismissed by the Courts below

No illegality or material irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Benami transaction means a transaction in name of another person to describe and express a transaction of property who holds that property being an ostensible owner for its beneficial owner

Benami transaction is a genre of transaction where somebody recompenses for property but does not get hold of it in his personal name

Person in whose name such type of property is purchased is called Benamidar and property so purchased is called Benami property.

Contention of plaintiff was that suit property was purchased through benami transaction and he was entitled to his half share

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Nothing was on record that defendant purchased suit property from the resources of plaintiff

Courts below had discussed evidence properly while dismissing the suit as well as appeal of the plaintiff

Trial Court had even taken pains to reproduce the evidence in verbatim in his judgment

Plaintiff had failed to prove transaction to be benami

No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Ingredients of Benami transaction were motive, consideration, possession of property and possession of original documents.

Contention of plaintiffs was that their predecessor purchased suit property in the name of minor son being Benami and they were entitled for their legal shares

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Ingredients of Benami transaction were motive, consideration, possession of property and possession of original documents

Predecessor of parties after retirement from service purchased suit property with amount of pension and gratuity

When father of minor defendant purchased suit property from his own declared funds/money then there was no need to hide the same from any one or purchase the same in the name of minor son as a Benami transaction

Defendant at the time of sale deed was minor having no source of income and consideration amount was paid by the predecessor of the parties

Mere infancy or childhood of defendant did not make the sale transaction in his favour as Benami transaction

Possession of suit land was with the defendant

Plaintiffs could not discharge the onus to prove that impugned transaction was Benami transaction

Suit property was knowingly and deliberately purchased by the predecessor of the parties in favour of his only son due to love and affection

Suit property was purchased in the year 1940 and predecessor of the parties remained alive till 1967

Predecessor in his lifetime neither made any effort to get the suit property in his name nor challenged the same before any appropriate forum

Defendant had alienated some land through mutation of gift in favour of her sisters on 12-03-1973

Plaintiffs were aware that suit property was in the name of defendant since 1973

Mother of plaintiffs in whose shoes they had stepped into was alive at that time and remained alive till 2000 but she never challenged the disputed transaction in her life time

Plaintiffs had challenged the disputed transaction after eight years of the death of their mother

Suit was barred by time in circumstances

No illegality was pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiff was that suit property was got transferred in the name of defendant as he was government servant

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Essential elements to establish benami transaction were agreement either express or implied between the ostensible owner and the purchaser for the purchase of property in the name of ostensible owner for the benefit of the person who had to make payment of the consideration and transaction actually entered between the real purchaser and seller to which ostensible owner was not party

Plaintiff could not prove agreement with regard to transfer of the suit property in his name by the defendant from the evidence available on record

No specific motive for transfer of suit land in favour of defendant was on record

If motive for benami transaction was to make assets through money earned illegally, the same could not be valid

Discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 could not be exercised in favour of plaintiff to allow him to reap benefit of his illegal gains

Plaintiff was in government service at the time of transaction of suit property and could not get the suit property transferred in his own name

Plaintiff having not proved the nature of transaction as benami suit was rightly dismissed

Plaintiff who could not explain the source of his income, could not purchase suit property

No illegality or procedural irregularity was pointed out in the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below

Revision was dismissed in limine.

Essential elements to establish benami transaction were agreement either express or implied between the ostensible owner and the purchaser for the purchase of property in the name of ostensible owner for the benefit of the person who had to make payment of the consideration and transaction actually entered between the real purchaser and seller to which ostensible owner was not party.

Ingredients for 'benami' transaction were source of income, intention to purchase the property as 'benami', original possession of property and the original document of title.

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.