Benami property claims cannot sustain ownership or partition relief when title stands in others' names and particulars are lacking.

A pleading claiming declaration of ownership and partition merely because one family member supplied the purchase or construction money does not, by itself, establish legal ownership in property standing in others' names; at most, it may support a separate money claim if proved. The counter-claim therefore failed to disclose a sustainable cause of action for the reliefs sought. It was also barred because it in substance asserted that consideration was paid by one person while title vested in others, which is a benami claim prohibited by statute. The alleged trust or fiduciary character was not pleaded with sufficient particulars to bring the case within any recognised exception, so the counter-claim was rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the counter-claim disclosed a cause of action for declaration of ownership and partition; (ii) whether the counter-claim was barred by the law prohibiting benami transactions.

Issue (i): whether the counter-claim disclosed a cause of action for declaration of ownership and partition.

Analysis: A plea that money for purchase of land or construction was provided by one family member does not by itself confer ownership in the property so acquired in the names of others. At best, such pleadings may support a claim for recovery of money, if otherwise proved. On the averments made, the counter-claim did not plead a legally sustainable entitlement to declaration that the claimant was the real owner or to partition of the property.

Conclusion: The counter-claim did not disclose a cause of action for the reliefs sought.

Issue (ii): whether the counter-claim was barred by the law prohibiting benami transactions.

Analysis: The pleadings in the counter-claim asserted that consideration for the property was provided by one person while the property stood in the names of others, which is a classic benami assertion. The statutory bar prevents enforcement of any right in respect of property held benami against the person in whose name the property stands. The alleged trust or fiduciary character was not supported by particulars sufficient to bring the claim within any recognised exception.

Conclusion: The counter-claim was barred by the prohibition against benami claims.

Final Conclusion: The application for rejection of the counter-claim was allowed and the counter-claim was held not maintainable in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A pleading asserting ownership, partition, or declaration over property merely because the claimant supplied the purchase or construction money does not disclose a maintainable cause of action and is barred where it in substance seeks enforcement of a benami claim.

---