Benami purchase claims fail without proof of intention, funds and surrounding circumstances; wife's properties treated as self-acquired.

The burden to prove that an apparent purchase is benami lies on the party asserting it, and that intention must be inferred from surrounding circumstances such as relationship, source of funds, possession, custody of title deeds and subsequent conduct. Mere proof that the husband paid part of the consideration or bought stamp papers was insufficient to establish benami character. On the facts, the plaintiffs neither specifically pleaded nor proved that the wife's sale deeds were benami, and the evidence did not show purchase from ancestral sale proceeds. The properties other than item nos. 1 and 3 were treated as the wife's self-acquired properties, leaving the plaintiffs without a share in them.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sale deeds standing in the name of the wife were benami transactions and, if not, whether the plaintiffs could claim partition in respect of the properties other than item nos. 1 and 3.

Analysis: The burden to establish that an apparent purchase is benami lies on the person asserting it. The decisive factor is the intention behind the purchase, to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances, relationship of the parties, source of funds, possession, custody of title deeds and subsequent conduct. Mere payment of part consideration by the husband or purchase of stamp papers by him was held insufficient, by itself, to prove benami nature. The plaintiffs did not specifically plead or prove that the transactions were benami, and the evidence relied upon did not establish that the suit properties were purchased in the wife's name from funds derived from sale of ancestral properties. The earlier release deed and the will were treated as insufficient to alter the character of the properties beyond what was otherwise proved.

Conclusion: The purchases in the wife's name, except item nos. 1 and 3, were not proved to be benami transactions and were treated as her self-acquired properties. The plaintiffs were held to have no share in those properties, while their claim was maintained only in respect of item nos. 1 and 3.

---