Benami proof and free consent in settlement deeds determine title, invalidity, and equal inheritance shares.

Benami claims require credible proof of the source of purchase money and the surrounding indicia of benami; mere conjecture about funding is insufficient to displace title standing in another's name. Applying that approach, the text states that the properties were treated as the mother's own assets, not benami purchases for the father. It also explains that settlement deeds may be invalidated where the executant's free will is doubtful and the propounder withholds the best evidence, including original deeds and key witness testimony; the deeds were therefore treated as void. Once those deeds were set aside, the plaintiff, as one of three children, was entitled to an equal one-third share in the suit properties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the properties in Schedules A and B were benami purchases made in the name of the mother for the father; (ii) whether the settlement deeds executed by the mother were valid and binding; (iii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to partition and declaration of her 1/3 share in the suit properties.

Issue (i): Whether the properties in Schedules A and B were benami purchases made in the name of the mother for the father.

Analysis: The decisive consideration was the source of purchase money and the surrounding circumstances of the acquisitions. The plaintiff failed to produce evidence showing that the father provided the consideration, while the defendants' stand that the mother had independent means was not disproved. The evidence did not establish any of the recognised indicia of benami, and the court found that mere conjecture about the father's funding was insufficient to displace the title standing in the mother's name. The additional plea that the benami prohibition barred the contention did not survive once the properties were found to be the mother's own properties.

Conclusion: The properties in Schedules A and B were held to be the mother's own properties and not benami properties of the father.

Issue (ii): Whether the settlement deeds executed by the mother were valid and binding.

Analysis: The court placed weight on the mother's advanced age, paralytic condition, dependence on the first defendant, absence of independent medical evidence, non-production of the original settlement deeds, and the failure of the most material witnesses to enter the box. These circumstances created serious doubt about the mother's ability to act with free will and showed that the defendants withheld the best evidence. On that basis, the court drew an adverse inference and concluded that the execution of the deeds was not proved to be voluntary and informed.

Conclusion: The settlement deeds were held to be not the product of the mother's free will and were declared void.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to partition and declaration of her 1/3 share in the suit properties.

Analysis: Once the properties were treated as belonging to the mother and the settlement deeds were set aside, the succession position on her death followed as a matter of course. The plaintiff, as one of three children, was entitled to an equal share in the properties, including the C schedule property that was not in dispute.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was held entitled to a preliminary declaration of 1/3 share in all the suit properties.

Final Conclusion: The suit succeeded in full, the impugned settlement deeds were annulled, and the plaintiff's one-third share in the suit properties was declared.

Ratio Decidendi: A benami plea must be proved by credible evidence of source of funds and surrounding indicia, and where the executant's free will is seriously doubtful, the propounder of the document must dispel that doubt by producing the best available evidence, failing which the transaction may be invalidated.

---