Rebuttable presumption in wife's name benami purchases displaced by evidence of source of funds and surrounding circumstances.

In a benami dispute over properties purchased in the wife's name, the Court treated Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 as creating a rebuttable presumption that the purchase was for her benefit. The presumption was found displaced by income-tax materials, account records, agricultural income details, receipts, licence documents, and oral evidence showing the husband's sufficient means, negotiation of the transactions, and funding of the purchases. The wife's alternative case that her father funded the purchases was found improbable and unsupported. The suit properties were therefore treated as benami purchases for the husband's benefit, and the declaration in favour of the respondent was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent established that the suit schedule properties were purchased in the appellant's name from his funds; (ii) Whether the respondent rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 that a purchase in the name of the wife is for her benefit.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent established that the suit schedule properties were purchased in the appellant's name from his funds.

Analysis: The respondent produced income-tax materials, account records, agricultural income details, tax and utility receipts, a money-lending licence, and supporting oral evidence from vendors and the builder. These materials were found to show sufficient means and to support his case that he negotiated the transactions and funded the purchases. The appellant's alternative case that her father funded the purchases was found improbable and unsupported by documents.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 that a purchase in the name of the wife is for her benefit.

Analysis: The statutory presumption was treated as rebuttable and capable of being displaced by direct evidence and surrounding circumstances. The Court held that mere management of the property by the husband did not by itself negate the wife's beneficial interest, and that tax evasion could not be accepted as a lawful motive. However, once the appellant's own explanation for the purchase was found improbable and the respondent's evidence established the source of funds and the surrounding circumstances of the transactions, the presumption stood rebutted.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the trial court's declaration that the suit properties were benami purchases for the respondent's benefit was sustained, and the decree remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit alleging benami purchase in the name of the wife, the statutory presumption under Section 3(2) is rebuttable and may be displaced by reliable evidence showing the real source of consideration and the surrounding circumstances of the transaction.

---