Appellate Court Decision: Plaintiff entitled to possession, defendants must vacate property.

The appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, determining that the suit property was not purchased as a benami transaction and that the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of possession. The defendants were found to be permissive occupants, and they were directed to submit a statement of accounts. The court rejected the defendants' claim of adverse possession and ordered them to hand over possession of the property to the plaintiff within three months.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit property was purchased by Subramanian in the name of the plaintiff as benamiRs.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possessionRs.
3. Whether the first defendant is liable to submit a statement of accountsRs.
4. Whether the defendants are permissive occupants of the suit propertyRs.
5. Whether the purchase of the suit property attracts Section 4(3)(a) of Act 45 of 1988Rs.
6. Whether the defendants perfected title by adverse possessionRs.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the suit property was purchased by Subramanian in the name of the plaintiff as benamiRs.
The trial court initially dismissed the suit, concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove his income to purchase the property, suggesting it was bought by Subramanian as a benami transaction. However, the appellate court found that the burden of proof lies on the defendants to establish the benami nature of the transaction. The appellate court noted that Subramanian, being a lawyer, never asserted ownership during his lifetime and acted merely as an agent for the plaintiff. The evidence showed that the plaintiff paid the consideration, and the defendants failed to prove otherwise. The court concluded that the plea of benami transaction was not established by the defendants.

Issue 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possessionRs.
The appellate court found that the plaintiff had established his ownership and the defendants were in permissive possession. The evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff had the right to recover possession, as Subramanian's occupation was permissive and there was no hostile intention shown during his lifetime. The court decreed for recovery of possession in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue 3: Whether the first defendant is liable to submit a statement of accountsRs.
The court decreed that the defendants must submit a statement of accounts, as the plaintiff had established his ownership and the defendants were occupying the property permissively.

Issue 4: Whether the defendants are permissive occupants of the suit propertyRs.
The appellate court concluded that the defendants were indeed permissive occupants. The plaintiff's brother, Subramanian, resided in the property with the plaintiff's permission, and there was no evidence of hostile possession or adverse claim during Subramanian's lifetime.

Issue 5: Whether the purchase of the suit property attracts Section 4(3)(a) of Act 45 of 1988Rs.
The court found that the plea under Section 4(3)(a) of Act 45 of 1988 was not applicable. The property was not purchased for the benefit of the coparceners in the family, and there was no reflection of such a transaction in the partition deed executed between the parties. The court held that the defendants' claim under this section was unfounded.

Issue 6: Whether the defendants perfected title by adverse possessionRs.
The appellate court held that the defendants did not perfect title by adverse possession. The evidence showed no hostile intention or animus on the part of Subramanian to claim the property as his own. The court emphasized that mere possession and payment of taxes by the defendants did not establish adverse possession.

Conclusion:
The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment, decreed the suit for declaration, recovery of possession, and submission of accounts in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants were directed to hand over possession of the suit property within three months. The appeal was allowed with no costs.

---