Benami claim and partition relief fail where purchase funds are unproved and conduct supports estoppel; injunction granted on possession.

A benami claim failed because the plaintiff could not prove that his funds purchased the property or supported the construction; the first defendant's evidence of purchase from her own business and rental income was accepted. The plaintiff's suit for declaration, partition and separate possession was nevertheless maintainable, and the court-fee was properly valued, but he could not obtain substantive relief once title was not established. His claim was also defeated by lack of possession and by estoppel arising from his attestation of mortgages executed by the first defendant. The connected injunction claim succeeded because the first defendant was shown to be in possession through tenants and entitled to protection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit property was purchased benami in the name of the first defendant for the benefit of the plaintiff; (ii) Whether the suit for declaration, partition and separate possession was maintainable and whether proper court-fee had been paid; (iii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to partition, separate possession and any share in the suit property, and whether he was estopped from claiming such share; (iv) Whether the first defendant was in possession of the first floor and entitled to injunction in the connected suit.

Issue (i): Whether the suit property was purchased benami in the name of the first defendant for the benefit of the plaintiff.

Analysis: The deciding factors for benami included the source of purchase money, possession after purchase, motive, relationship between the parties, custody of title deeds, and subsequent conduct. On the evidence, the plaintiff failed to prove that his funds went into the purchase of the site or the construction of the superstructure. The first defendant's account of payment from her own business and rental income was accepted. The plaintiff's employment and financial capacity did not support his version.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the plaintiff; the property was not held to be benami for his benefit.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for declaration, partition and separate possession was maintainable and whether proper court-fee had been paid.

Analysis: The plaint contained a specific prayer for declaration of title to a half share, and valuation was made with reference to that relief as well as under the applicable court-fees provision. No convincing objection to valuation or court-fee was advanced.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff; the suit was maintainable and the court-fee was proper.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to partition, separate possession and any share in the suit property, and whether he was estopped from claiming such share.

Analysis: Since the plaintiff failed on the core benami issue, he could not establish any title or share in the property. The evidence also showed that he was not in possession or enjoyment of the property. Further, his attestation of the mortgages executed by the first defendant supported the plea that he was aware of and bound by the transactions, giving rise to estoppel against his present claim.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the plaintiff; he was not entitled to partition, separate possession, or any share, and he was estopped from asserting such claim.

Issue (iv): Whether the first defendant was in possession of the first floor and entitled to injunction in the connected suit.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the first defendant had always been in possession through tenants and was collecting rents, while the plaintiff had never been in possession of the first floor. On that footing, interference by the plaintiff was not justified and protection by injunction was warranted.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the first defendant; she was entitled to injunction.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff's suit failed on title and consequential reliefs, while the connected suit for injunction succeeded on proof of possession and entitlement to protection.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim of benami must fail where the alleged claimant cannot prove that his funds purchased the property, and attestation of the mortgages by the claimant may support estoppel against a later assertion of ownership.

---