Benami presumption in spouse purchases rebutted where husband paid full consideration and no benefit to wife was proved.

Where a property is purchased in the joint names of husband and wife, but the husband pays the entire consideration, the wife acquires no substantive ownership merely from inclusion of her name in the sale deed unless she proves that the purchase was made for her benefit. The Court treated the statutory presumption under the benami framework as rebuttable and found it displaced by the evidence, including the wife's lack of independent income and absence of proof of beneficial ownership. It further stated that the spouse and fiduciary exceptions did not create co-ownership on these facts. The concurrent decree in the wife's favour was therefore not sustainable, and the partition claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff-wife acquired any substantive right in the suit property purchased in joint names, and whether the transaction was saved by the statutory exceptions relating to purchase in the name of a spouse or in a fiduciary capacity under the benami law.

Analysis: The suit property was purchased in the joint names of the husband and wife, but the evidence showed that the husband paid the entire consideration. The wife did not plead or establish that the purchase was made for her benefit, and her admitted lack of independent income weakened the statutory presumption that the purchase was for her benefit. The statutory exceptions for purchase in the name of a spouse and for fiduciary capacity were construed in the light of the object of the benami law and the factual matrix. The Court held that the presumption under the old benami law was rebuttable, that the wife stood in no fiduciary position conferring an enforceable ownership claim, and that inclusion of her name in the sale deed did not, by itself, create co-ownership or substantive rights. The Court also applied the amended benami regime to explain that such spouse-based transactions remain outside the mischief of benami prohibition, but only the real owner can claim de jure title where the consideration was wholly supplied by him.

Conclusion: The wife did not acquire any substantive right or share in the suit property merely because her name appeared in the sale deed, and the concurrent decree in her favour could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal succeeded and the decrees passed by the courts below were set aside, resulting in dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for partition.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the entire consideration for a property is paid by the husband and the wife's name is included in the deed without proof that the purchase was for her benefit, the statutory presumption in favour of the wife stands rebutted and she does not acquire a co-ownership right merely from inclusion of her name.

---