Benami transfer challenge fails where a registered assignment is proved real and unsupported by fraud or legal infirmity.

A registered assignment was upheld as a genuine and operative transfer, not a benami or sham transaction, because the plaintiff failed to prove that the apparent bargain was unreal. The Court treated the burden as lying on the party alleging sham, and relied on the surrounding circumstances, including the parties' relationship, the prior draft gift deed, the plaintiff's failure to testify, and supporting evidence for the defendant. It further held that the deed remained valid despite any inadequacy of consideration, since Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act does not void an agreement on that ground alone and no fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation, or uncertainty of subject matter was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the deed of assignment was a benami or sham transaction and not intended to be operative; (ii) whether the deed was valid and operative in law as a transfer for consideration.

Issue (i): whether the deed of assignment was a benami or sham transaction and not intended to be operative.

Analysis: The plaintiff failed to prove that the apparent transfer was unreal. The surrounding circumstances, including the prior draft of a gift deed, the close relationship between the parties, the plaintiff's failure to enter the witness box, and the supporting testimony of the defendant, showed that the transaction was intended to take effect. The Court treated the burden as resting on the plaintiff to establish that the document did not represent the real bargain.

Conclusion: The deed was not a benami or sham document and was intended to be operative.

Issue (ii): whether the deed was valid and operative in law as a transfer for consideration.

Analysis: The document was construed as a real deed of transfer supported by consideration. Under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, inadequacy of consideration does not by itself void an agreement, and the transfer was also explained by natural love and affection. No fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation, or legal infirmity was proved, and the description of the transferred assets was held sufficiently certain. The Court also found no basis to invoke invalidating principles under property law.

Conclusion: The deed was valid and operative in law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the challenged assignment was held to be a genuine and effective transfer, and the plaintiff was not entitled to the claimed relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered transfer executed for natural love and affection, supported by consideration and proved to be real in substance, cannot be treated as benami merely because the consideration is small or the transferor later disputes its effect; the party alleging sham or illegality must establish that conclusion by clear proof.

---