Common family fund purchase established co-ownership; transaction not benami, with title-holder unable to claim exclusive ownership.

Immovable property purchased from a common family fund, with consent of contributing members, was treated as belonging to all contributors in proportion to their contribution; the person in whose name title stood could not claim exclusive ownership. The court also held that the arrangement was not benami because the property was not shown to have been purchased wholly by one person for another, nor was there material to show concealment of ownership or other statutory ingredients of a benami transfer. The suit was decreed, the parties were declared co-owners with equal shares, and protection against forcible dispossession followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the purchase consideration for the schedule property was paid solely by the defendant or was contributed by the plaintiffs and the defendant from a common fund, and whether the plaintiffs were co-owners to the extent of their contribution. (ii) Whether the purchase of the property in the defendant's name was hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Issue (i): Whether the purchase consideration for the schedule property was paid solely by the defendant or was contributed by the plaintiffs and the defendant from a common fund, and whether the plaintiffs were co-owners to the extent of their contribution.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the sale consideration was paid through a demand draft obtained from the second plaintiff's account, that the first plaintiff had transferred substantial funds for the purchase, and that the defendant's claim of exclusive funding was not supported by the bank records or by the surrounding circumstances. The defendant's own admission that he had contributed a sum towards the house purchase also supported the plaintiffs' version. On the facts, the property was acquired from a common fund with consent of the family members, and the person in whose name the property stood could not assert exclusive title against the others who contributed to the purchase.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs and the defendant, after the death of the original lessee, were co-owners of the schedule property in proportion to their contribution, and the defendant was not the exclusive owner.

Issue (ii): Whether the purchase of the property in the defendant's name was hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Analysis: A benami transaction requires that property be transferred to one person for consideration wholly provided by another, with the necessary legal character of such a transaction. Here, the defendant himself had contributed to the purchase, and the property was bought with the consent of the family members from a common fund. There was no material to show that the arrangement was intended to conceal ownership, evade revenue, or otherwise satisfy the statutory notion of benami. The transaction therefore did not fall within the mischief of the Act.

Conclusion: The transaction was not benami and was not barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the suit was decreed, the plaintiffs and the defendant were declared co-owners with equal shares, and an injunction against forcible dispossession followed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where immovable property is purchased from a common fund with the consent of contributing family members, the purchaser in whose name title stands holds it for the benefit of all contributors in proportion to their contribution, and such a transaction is not benami unless the statutory ingredients of a benami transfer are established.

---