Benami purchase claim fails where clear evidence does not show husband funded the property, and wife is supported as real owner.

A benami claim requires the party asserting it to prove, by clear evidence and surrounding circumstances, that the apparent purchaser is not the real owner. Relevant factors include the source of purchase money, possession after purchase, motive, relationship, custody of title deeds, and subsequent conduct. On the facts, the evidence did not show that the husband financed the purchase, and his financial position did not support that inference. Documentary and oral material, including an earlier pre-litigation recital, supported the wife's independent means and ownership. The husband's role in negotiations and possession of the deed were explained by the wife's pardanishin status and did not establish benami.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit property standing in the name of the wife was a benami purchase for the husband, and whether the plaintiffs failed to prove that the apparent purchaser was not the real owner.

Analysis: The party asserting benami must strictly discharge the burden by clear legal evidence or circumstances firmly pointing to that conclusion. In judging such a claim, relevant indicia include the source of the purchase money, possession after purchase, motive for benami, relationship of the parties, custody of title deeds, and subsequent conduct. On the facts, the evidence did not establish that the husband supplied the purchase money. His financial condition did not support such an inference, while the surrounding documentary and oral evidence, including an earlier recital made before litigation, supported the conclusion that the wife had independent means and was the real purchaser. The husband's participation in negotiations and possession of the deed were explained by the wife's status as a pardanishin lady and did not prove benami. Earlier proceedings and orders relied upon by the appellants were treated as inconclusive and outweighed by the totality of probabilities pointing the other way.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs failed to prove that the wife was only a benamidar of her husband, and the property was held to belong to the wife as real purchaser.

---