Declaration of title and consequential injunction - burden of proof in reclaiming title contrary to documentary title - presumption under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act where property stands in the name of wife - bonafide purchaser for value - lis pendensBurden of proof in reclaiming title contrary to documentary title - presumption under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act where property stands in the name of wife - declaration of title and consequential injunction - Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and entitled to injunction - HELD THAT: - The documentary title stands in the name of the first defendant; the plaintiff bore the onus to prove that he purchased the properties though they were in the defendant's name. The plaintiff produced his own evidence (PW1) and some documents suggesting withdrawals from his account, but no independent corroboration was adduced. The court found the first defendant had no proved independent source to purchase the properties and that there were circumstances suggesting purchase by the plaintiff in the defendant's name. However, where a property is purchased in the name of the wife the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act engenders a legal presumption that the property was purchased for the benefit of the ostensible owner (wife), and the Act and its presumption operate unless the contrary is proved. On the evidence the legal presumption in favour of the first defendant was not displaced. Further, there was no material showing disturbance of possession by the defendants to justify an injunction. For these reasons the plaintiff's claim for declaration of title and consequential injunction was repelled. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 14]Answered against the plaintiff; declaration and injunction refused.Bonafide purchaser for value - lis pendens - Second defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value - HELD THAT: - The second defendant purchased a portion of the suit property while the suit was pending. The purchase occurred without production or perusal of the original title deeds then in the court's possession. A sale in the face of pending litigation is hit by lis pendens and cannot be treated as a bona fide purchase for value. The circumstances including absence of original title deed at the time of purchase created doubt as to bonafides. [Paras 15]Answered against the second defendant; not a bona fide purchaser for value.Declaration of title and consequential injunction - Relief to which the plaintiff is entitled - HELD THAT: - In view of the findings on title and on the status of the second defendant's purchase, the court found no ground to grant the primary relief of declaration of title or the consequential relief of permanent injunction. As the main relief fails, consequential injunction is unnecessary. [Paras 16]Suit dismissed; no relief to the plaintiff.Final Conclusion: The suit is dismissed for failure to establish title contrary to documentary records and on account of the statutory presumption under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act; the second defendant's purchase held to be hit by lis pendens and not bona fide. There is no order as to costs.