Supreme Court Overturns Lower Court Rulings, Dismisses Plaintiff's Suit for Recovery of B Schedule Property Possession.

The SC allowed the second appeal, setting aside the lower courts' judgments regarding the recovery of possession of the B schedule property. The court found that the plaintiff's admission of believing the property belonged to the appellant until 1954 demonstrated an intention for the appellant to be the owner, refuting the benami claim. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession was dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Recovery of possession of B schedule property based on benami transaction.

Analysis:
The plaintiff, who was the husband of the appellant, filed a suit for recovery of possession of the B schedule property, alleging that although the property was in the name of the appellant, he had provided the money for its purchase and was the beneficial owner. Both lower courts found in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the property was purchased benami. The appellant contended that she had provided the consideration for the property and that the property was intended to belong to her. The courts focused on the source of consideration, with both courts determining that the husband had provided the money for the purchase. The crucial issue was whether the husband intended to benefit the wife by putting the property in her name. The husband claimed he did not intend to benefit the wife but merely included her name in the deed as a compliment. However, the court emphasized that in cases of close relationships like husband and wife, the motive behind the transaction is crucial. The court found that the husband's admission that he believed the property belonged to the wife until 1954 indicated his intention that the wife should be the owner of the property. This admission was considered clear evidence that the wife was intended to be the owner of the property, refuting the benami claim made by the plaintiff.

The court held that the lower courts failed to consider the crucial admission by the plaintiff regarding his belief that the property belonged to the wife until 1954. This admission indicated the husband's intention that the wife should be the owner of the property, which refuted the benami claim. As a result, the second appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the lower courts regarding the recovery of possession of the B schedule property were set aside. The plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession of the B schedule property was dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the second appeal.

---