Benami purchase and tenant estoppel: property bought in another's name and continued possession barred denial of title.

Purchase of property in the name of a nominal transferee was treated as benami where the purchase money came from the taluqdar, the property was financed on mortgage of his own assets, and the surrounding circumstances showed no intention to benefit the mistress. The bungalow was therefore held to belong beneficially to the taluqdar's estate. A tenant inducted into possession cannot deny the landlord's title while still in possession; rent payment and continued occupation after notice to quit attracted statutory estoppel under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The High Court's decree was set aside and the trial decree restored with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bungalow purchased in the name of the taluqdar's mistress was a benami purchase for the taluqdar and his estate; (ii) Whether a tenant in possession could deny the landlord's title.

Issue (i): Whether the bungalow purchased in the name of the taluqdar's mistress was a benami purchase for the taluqdar and his estate.

Analysis: The purchase money came from the taluqdar, who raised it on mortgage of his own property and retained sole enjoyment of the bungalow during his lifetime. The surrounding circumstances showed no real intention to make a provision for the mistress, and the property was used by the taluqdar and his wives, not by the nominal transferee. The mere registration of the sale deed in the mistress's name was insufficient to displace the natural inference that the transaction was benami.

Conclusion: The bungalow was held to be benami and to belong beneficially to the taluqdar's estate, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether a tenant in possession could deny the landlord's title.

Analysis: Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act embodies the rule that a tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny the landlord's title so long as possession has not been surrendered. The tenant had been inducted by the landlord's servant on her behalf, had paid rent, and remained in possession after notice to quit. Those facts attracted the statutory estoppel.

Conclusion: The tenant was estopped from denying the landlord's title, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's decree was set aside and the trial decree was restored, with costs awarded to the respondents below and in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where purchase money is paid by one person and the property is taken in another's name without intention to benefit the nominal transferee, the transaction is benami; and a tenant inducted into possession cannot dispute the landlord's title without first surrendering possession.

---