Benami claims and unproved Wills fail absent statutory exception, proper attestation, and reliable proof of execution

A benami plea fails where the statutory bar applies and the claimed coparcenary exception is not established; the document notes that the purchase money was not proved to have come from the alleged source, so title under the sale deeds prevailed. A Will will not be accepted as valid unless due execution and attestation are satisfactorily proved and suspicious circumstances are dispelled by reliable evidence; here, proof remained deficient. On partition, only the properties found to be jointly partible could be divided, while those in the exclusive domain of one party were excluded, and the share allocation was adjusted accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether item No. 1 of the plaint 'A' schedule property was a benami acquisition hit by the bar under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; (ii) whether the Will propounded by the appellants was duly proved, true, valid and binding; and (iii) whether the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were available for partition and whether the trial court's decree required interference.

Issue (i): whether item No. 1 of the plaint 'A' schedule property was a benami acquisition hit by the bar under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Analysis: The house stood purchased under sale deeds in the name of the 1st respondent. The appellants sought to treat the transaction as benami and to invoke the coparcenary exception, but the evidence showed that the family had already undergone disruption in status and division, and that no subsisting Hindu undivided family or coparcenary was established at the relevant time. In that situation, the statutory bar against enforcing rights based on a benami plea applied, and the exception for property held for a coparcenary was not available. The appellants also failed to discharge the burden of proving that the purchase money came from the deceased 1st appellant so as to displace the title reflected in the sale deeds.

Conclusion: The benami plea was barred and rejected, and item No. 1 of the plaint 'A' schedule was held not available to the appellants on that basis.

Issue (ii): whether the Will propounded by the appellants was duly proved, true, valid and binding.

Analysis: The Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The main beneficiary was an interested witness, the alleged disposition was not referred to in the contemporaneous notice or pleadings in the manner expected if it were genuine, and the mandatory evidentiary requirements for proving a Will were not satisfactorily met. The attesting witnesses were not properly examined in accordance with the governing law, and the surrounding circumstances were not dispelled by reliable evidence. On the record, the proof of due execution and validity remained deficient.

Conclusion: The Will was not proved to be true, valid or binding on the respondents.

Issue (iii): whether the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were available for partition and whether the trial court's decree required interference.

Analysis: Item No. 1 of the plaint 'A' schedule and items 1 and 2 of the plaint 'B' schedule were found to be in the exclusive domain of the 1st respondent and not jointly partible among the parties. By contrast, items 2 and 3 of the plaint 'A' schedule alone were liable to be partitioned, and the shares were to be worked out by applying the rules governing devolution under the Hindu Succession Act. The trial court's decree required modification only to that limited extent, while the rest of its findings were sustained.

Conclusion: Only items 2 and 3 of the plaint 'A' schedule were held partitionable, the trial court's decree was modified accordingly, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The decree was upheld in substance with modification of the share allocation, the appellants did not succeed in overturning the adverse findings on benami claim and Will, and the cross-objections were accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea of benami cannot succeed where the statutory bar applies and the claimed coparcenary exception is not established, and a Will cannot be accepted as proved unless its execution and attestation are satisfactorily established and surrounding suspicious circumstances are dispelled by reliable evidence.

---