1997 (2) TMI 594 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court Appeal: Joint Family Property & Benami Transaction Case Decree Modified

Buddheswar Ghosh and Ors. Versus Ekkari Ghosh and Ors.

The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal in a declaration and partition decree case involving joint family properties and benami transactions. The court ... - Issues:Declaration and partition decree appeal involving joint family properties and benami transactions.Analysis:The appeal before the Calcutta High Court involved a decree for declaration and partition, with the defendants as the appellants. The plaintiffs and defendants were from the same family branch, and the properties in dispute were those mentioned in the schedule attached to the written statement. The plaintiffs claimed equal share in the properties standing in the name of the defendants' mother, alleging that they were acquired from joint family assets. The defendants contended that the properties belonged to their mother absolutely, acquired from her sridhan money, and even if benami, the suit was barred under the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring their entitlement to a share in the properties.The trial court's findings included the rejection of the defendants' claim of previous partition and the acceptance of the plaintiffs' claim regarding specific plots and properties. The court held that the properties were joint family assets, and the plaintiffs were entitled to a share based on the evidence presented. The court also accepted the plaintiffs' case of paying half the consideration money for certain properties acquired in a pre-emption proceeding. The decree granted the plaintiffs a share in the properties, including specific details of ownership in different plots and tanks.The High Court considered the principles of benami transactions, emphasizing the need for evidence to displace the onus of proving benami. The court highlighted factors such as the source of funds, nature of possession, motives, and conduct of parties in determining the true ownership of properties. The court criticized the trial court's approach to the evidence and placement of onus regarding the properties, emphasizing the importance of considering all materials in reaching a conclusion. Additionally, the court noted that the suit predated the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988, and applied relevant legal principles to uphold the maintainability of the plaintiffs' suit.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree related to properties mentioned in a specific schedule, while affirming the rest as a preliminary decree with modifications. The court directed the inclusion of heirs of the deceased plaintiff in the case records and provided instructions for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment. Justice B. Panigrahi concurred with the decision.