Registered release deed and fiduciary holding: appellate finding on benami was perverse, and title was restored.

A registered release deed that clearly evinced an intention to transfer property was treated as valid title-conveying evidence within a fiduciary setting, so the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 did not defeat the plaintiffs' claim on the facts found. The appellate court's additional issue on benami transaction was unsupported by the pleadings and evidence, because the deed's execution and recitals were not genuinely in dispute and the contrary inference was unsustainable. The High Court held the adverse finding on the deed and title to be perverse, restored the trial court's decree declaring title and possession, and maintained the injunction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate court could frame and decide an additional issue on benami transaction when the issue was not specifically pleaded, and whether that issue was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. (ii) Whether the appellate court's findings on the additional issue and on title were perverse.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate court could frame and decide an additional issue on benami transaction when the issue was not specifically pleaded, and whether that issue was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Analysis: The additional issue was framed to examine the legal effect of the registered release deed and the title claimed through it. The transaction was found to fall within the exception relating to property held in a fiduciary capacity, and the release deed was treated as an instrument transferring title rather than as an impermissible benami claim. The prohibition against benami claims did not defeat the plaintiffs' title on the facts found.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court's findings on the additional issue and on title were perverse.

Analysis: The appellate court's contrary inference was held unsustainable because the release deed was a registered document, its execution and admission were not genuinely in dispute, and its recitals clearly evidenced an intention to transfer the property. The burden regarding the contrary plea was not discharged, and the finding against the validity and effect of the deed was treated as perverse. The plaintiffs' title and possession were therefore reaffirmed.

Conclusion: The finding is held to be perverse and is set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The trial court's decree declaring title and possession and granting injunction was restored, and the appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered release deed which clearly evinces an intention to transfer property and which operates within a fiduciary setting can validly convey title, and a contrary appellate finding unsupported by the pleadings and evidence is perverse.

---