Benami transaction test turns on intention and surrounding circumstances, with title upheld for the wife on the facts.

In a benami dispute, the decisive test is the intention of the person who supplied the purchase money, to be gathered from the parties' relationship, motive, surrounding circumstances, and subsequent conduct; the source of funds alone is not conclusive. On the facts, the property was bought in the wife's name, the husband attested the power-of-attorney, her name was mutated immediately after purchase, and she retained possession and control, indicating a provision for the wife and daughters rather than a concealed benami holding. The defendants also failed to produce convincing evidence, and adverse inference followed from non-examination of a material witness. The transaction was therefore not proved benami, and title was treated as vesting in the wife and, after her, her heirs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit property was acquired as a benami transaction or for the benefit of the wife, and whether the evidence established that the defendant's claim to exclusive title could displace the plaintiffs' case.

Analysis: The decisive question in a benami dispute is the intention of the person who provided the purchase money, assessed from the totality of the surrounding circumstances, the relationship of the parties, the motive for the transaction, and their subsequent conduct. Mere source of funds is not conclusive. On the facts, the property was purchased in the wife's name after a power-of-attorney executed by her, the husband attested the document, the wife's name was mutated immediately after purchase, and she remained in possession and control. The surrounding circumstances showed an intention to make provision for the wife and daughters rather than to create a concealed benami holding. The defendants also failed to adduce convincing evidence, and an adverse inference arose from the non-examination of the material witness.

Conclusion: The transaction was not proved to be benami. The property was treated as belonging to the wife and, after her, to her heirs, and the plaintiffs' title was upheld.

---