Possession suit valuation, admissibility of later evidence, and failure to prove benami ownership sustained the plaintiff's title.

A suit for recovery of possession of immovable property had to be valued on market value under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, and the plaint was found undervalued, though that defect did not defeat the decree at the appellate stage. Additional evidence recorded after closure of the defendant's evidence was held admissible because it had been allowed by court order, with notice, cross-examination, and no timely objection. The plea that the property was benami in the plaintiff's name failed because the defendant did not discharge the heavy burden of proof. The plaintiff's title, right to possession, damages for use and occupation, and the revenue attachment were sustained; furniture was excluded.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit for recovery of possession was correctly valued and court fee was payable on the market value of the property; (ii) whether evidence recorded after the closure of the defendant's evidence could be relied upon; (iii) whether the plea that the property was purchased benami in the name of the plaintiff was proved; and (iv) whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession and damages while the claim to furniture and the defendant's challenge to the revenue attachment failed.

Issue (i): whether the suit for recovery of possession was correctly valued and court fee was payable on the market value of the property.

Analysis: A suit for possession of immovable property not otherwise provided for had to be valued under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 on the basis of market value. The court fee question was primarily between the court and the State, and the defendant had not raised the objection in the written statement or secured any issue at trial. Even so, the court found that the plaint had been undervalued on the plaintiff's own valuation, though that defect did not justify dismissal or rejection at the appellate stage.

Conclusion: The suit was undervalued, but the objection could not defeat the decree, and the plaintiff was directed to pay the deficit court fee if the decree was sustained.

Issue (ii): whether evidence recorded after the closure of the defendant's evidence could be relied upon.

Analysis: The additional evidence was permitted by order of court on an application made with notice to the defendant, and the defendant raised no objection at that stage. The witnesses were in fact cross-examined by the defendant, who also relied upon that evidence before the trial court. In those circumstances, the later attempt to exclude that evidence was held to be untenable. The provisions dealing with the court's power to recall witnesses and the judge's power to put questions did not assist the defendant on the facts found.

Conclusion: The evidence recorded later was admissible and could be relied upon.

Issue (iii): whether the plea that the property was purchased benami in the name of the plaintiff was proved.

Analysis: The burden to establish benami lay heavily on the person asserting it. The court applied the settled indicia governing benami, including the source of funds, possession, relationship of the parties, motive, custody of title deeds, and subsequent conduct. The defendant failed to prove that he funded the purchase and construction, failed to establish a credible motive, and relied on a case that was inconsistent with the admitted circumstances of the parties living together as husband and wife when the property was acquired. The plaintiff's title, the municipal and tax records, and the surrounding circumstances supported her ownership.

Conclusion: The plea of benami was not proved, and the plaintiff was held to be the owner of the property.

Issue (iv): whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession and damages while the claim to furniture and the defendant's challenge to the revenue attachment failed.

Analysis: Since the plaintiff's ownership was upheld, she was entitled to recover possession from the defendant. The decree for damages for use and occupation was affirmed, and no challenge was effectively pressed to that relief. The plaintiff was, however, denied recovery of the furniture. The challenge to the tax recovery proceedings was also not interfered with, and the department was held entitled to proceed against the property for the arrears due.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to possession and damages, but not to the furniture, and the revenue attachment was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The common judgment and decree were affirmed in substance, the plaintiff's title and right to possession were sustained, the benami defence failed, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.

---