Benami ownership requires reliable proof, and confidential income-tax returns cannot be proved as public documents or by secondary evidence.

Account entries for stamp duty, repairs and ceremonial expenses did not by themselves prove that a house bought in the mother's name was benami for the judgment-debtor, especially where he had attained majority and the estate was also indebted to her; the finding that the property did not belong to him was upheld. Certified copies of income-tax returns were also held inadmissible, because returns are protected by statutory confidentiality and are not public documents merely because certified copies exist. The appeal therefore failed on both the title and evidence issues, and the decree in favour of the claim-holder remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the estate accounts established that the purchase money and later expenditure on the house came from the judgment-debtor's estate so as to show that the house was benami for him. (ii) Whether certified copies of income-tax returns could be admitted as secondary evidence and treated as public documents.

Issue (i): Whether the estate accounts established that the purchase money and later expenditure on the house came from the judgment-debtor's estate so as to show that the house was benami for him.

Analysis: The account entries showing expenditure on stamp paper, repairs, and ceremonial expenses did not by themselves prove title in the judgment-debtor. The house had been bought in the mother's name, the judgment-debtor had attained majority when the expenditure was incurred, and the estate was also indebted to her. The surrounding conduct of the parties was not consistent with the appellant's case, and the evidence did not compel the inference that the house was purchased for the son.

Conclusion: The finding that the house did not belong to the judgment-debtor was upheld, and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether certified copies of income-tax returns could be admitted as secondary evidence and treated as public documents.

Analysis: Income-tax returns were treated as confidential under the Income-tax Act and were not part of the record of the assessing officer's act within the meaning of the law of public documents. The return itself was not a public document, and the statutory confidentiality attached to it could not be defeated by producing certified copies as secondary evidence. The returns were therefore not admissible.

Conclusion: The certified copies of the income-tax returns were held inadmissible in evidence, and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the title issue and the evidentiary issue, so the decree favouring the claim-holder was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A document protected by statutory confidentiality cannot be treated as a public document or proved by secondary evidence merely because certified copies are available, and account entries alone do not establish benami ownership without reliable proof that the purchase money came from the alleged real owner.

---