Benami transaction claims require strict proof; oral testimony alone was insufficient to displace the recorded purchaser's title.

Benami claims must be strictly proved by the person asserting them, and the initial presumption remains that the recorded purchaser is the real owner. Source of purchase money is relevant but not ative on its own; the controlling question is the intention behind the transaction, shown by definite evidence and surrounding circumstances. Here, the challenger relied mainly on oral testimony and produced no documentary proof of consideration, payment, motive, or conduct showing that the husband retained beneficial ownership. The recorded purchaser asserted title, explained the funds as stridhan, and produced documents supporting possession and management in her name. The benami plea therefore failed, and the recorded purchaser was treated as the real owner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the purchase of the suit property in the wife's name was a benami transaction, and whether the plaintiff-appellant discharged the burden of proving that the apparent purchaser was only a name-lender.

Analysis: The transaction was examined under the settled principles governing benami claims. A benami plea must be strictly proved by the person asserting it, and the initial presumption remains in favour of the recorded purchaser. The source of purchase money is relevant, but not decisive by itself; the controlling question is the intention behind the transaction. The appellant adduced only oral testimony and no documentary proof to show the source of consideration, the manner of payment, the alleged motive for benami, or any conduct indicating that the husband intended to retain the beneficial ownership. In contrast, the recorded purchaser asserted ownership, explained the source as stridhan, and produced supporting documents showing possession and management of the property in her name.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove that the sale was benami, and the recorded purchaser was treated as the real owner.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the dismissal of the suit was rejected, and the decree under appeal was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A benami claim can succeed only when the challenger strictly proves, by definite evidence and surrounding circumstances, that the apparent purchaser was not the real owner and that the transaction was intended to confer beneficial ownership on another person.

---