Benami property claims turn on full evidence, including funding, possession, conduct, and title custody, not bare assertions.

In a benami dispute, the party asserting benami must prove the claim on the whole evidence, including source of consideration, possession, custody of title, conduct of the parties, and surrounding probabilities. On the facts discussed, the evidence of payment and management supported the husband's involvement, while the wife did not convincingly establish independent funds or the means to construct the house. The husband's apparent financial capacity and treatment of the property as his own, together with his failure to support the wife's title, strengthened the inference that the wife was only a benamdar and the attachment claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputed Ka schedule property was really the husband's property and the wife was only his benamdar, so as to justify setting aside the claim order under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: In a benami dispute, the burden lies on the party asserting benami, and the court must decide the question on the whole evidence, including surrounding circumstances such as source of consideration, possession, custody of title, conduct of the parties, and probabilities. The evidence of payment and management of the property pointed to the husband's involvement, while the wife's case that she had sufficient independent funds was not convincingly established. The evidence showed that the wife lacked the means for construction of the house, whereas the husband had the apparent financial capacity and was treating the property as his own. His failure to appear and support the wife's title also strengthened the inference against her claim.

Conclusion: The Ka schedule property was held to belong to the husband, with the wife being merely his benamdar, and the plaintiff's claim to attach the property was upheld. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

---