Benami transactions must be proved by legal evidence, and apparent title prevails unless convincingly displaced.

A plea of benami requires legal proof of the real source of purchase money and the true character of the transaction; suspicion or later conduct is insufficient to displace the apparent tenor of the deeds. On the materials discussed, the purchases in the names of Abdul Majid and Abdul Azim were not shown to be benami or fictitious. The plaintiffs also failed to trace a subsisting share or title in Budhiamara, including the disputed and indigo factory lands, because the documentary materials did not establish a separate mouza or an effective under-tenure. The evidence on possession and limitation likewise favoured the defendants, so the decree below was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the purchases in the names of Abdul Majid and Abdul Azim were benami or fictitious transactions, (ii) whether the plaintiffs had any subsisting share or title in Budhiamara, including the disputed lands and the indigo factory lands, and (iii) whether the plaintiffs' claim was barred or defeated on the question of possession and limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the purchases in the names of Abdul Majid and Abdul Azim were benami or fictitious transactions.

Analysis: The decisive test was the real source of the purchase-money and the legal effect of the surrounding circumstances. Suspicion, embarrassment of the original owner, and later dealings with the property were not enough by themselves to displace the apparent tenor of the deeds. The evidence did not establish that the executant purchases were mere shadows or that the apparent transferees did not really acquire the interest. The court applied the settled rule that the party alleging benami must prove it by legal testimony, and not merely by probabilities or conjecture.

Conclusion: The purchases were not proved to be benami or fictitious, and the finding was against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs had any subsisting share or title in Budhiamara, including the disputed lands and the indigo factory lands.

Analysis: The title to the released lands had to be traced from the older partition materials, the ekrarnama, and the settlement records. On that material, Budhiamara was not shown to be a separate and independent mouza, and the released lands were treated as vesting in the relevant branch of title. As to the indigo factory lands, although the older documents suggested an under-tenure, there was no proof that such a tenure ever truly came into existence or was acted upon by payment of rent or actual enjoyment.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs failed to establish a share or title in Budhiamara or in the indigo factory lands, and the finding was against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiffs' claim was barred or defeated on the question of possession and limitation.

Analysis: The evidence of possession did not support the plaintiffs. In the absence of reliable proof of continuous possession by the plaintiffs or of custody of the title deeds, the presumption was that possession accompanied title. The balance of evidence favoured the defendants, who were treated as the rightful owners.

Conclusion: The claim failed on the question of possession and limitation, and the finding was against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appellants failed to displace the findings on title, possession, and the genuineness of the transfers, so the decree of the court below stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea of benami must be proved by legal evidence showing the real source and character of the transaction, and where title and possession are traced through documentary and surrounding circumstances, the apparent transfer will prevail unless convincingly displaced.

---