Benami transaction claim dismissed due to lack of documentary evidence and inadequate proof of income trail

The HC dismissed the appellant's benami transaction claim for lack of documentary evidence. Despite the respondent's failure to file a written statement to the counter-claim constituting an admission, she successfully defended through cross-examination by exposing weaknesses in appellant's case. The court held that mere assertion of benami purchase without supporting documentation or paper trail of income and transactions cannot establish benami ownership. The respondent effectively demolished the appellant's claim by highlighting the falsity and inadequacy of evidence presented.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Court can pass a Decree declaring a party to be the absolute owner of the suit premises and give him right, title, and interest over the same by virtue of a registered document which is an Agreement for Sale.
2. Whether the non-filing of a Written Statement by Defendant No.1 to the Counter-Claim filed by Defendant No.2 would constitute admission by Defendant No.1.
3. Whether the prayer for declaration of title of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff is barred by Limitation when the Plaintiff admits that a Sale Deed was executed and presented for registration more than five years before the date of filing of the original Suit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue B: Non-filing of Written Statement and Admission
The court confined its discussions to the substantial question of law framed in Issue B, as agreed upon by all parties.

1. Arguments by Appellant's Counsel:
- The Appellant, as Defendant No.2, claimed ownership of the land and building, stating that Defendant No.1 (Respondent No.2) had no independent income to purchase the property.
- Defendant No.1 failed to file a response to the Counter-Claim, which the Appellant argued should be considered an admission of his averments.
- The Appellant admitted there was no documentary evidence of his income or investments.

2. Arguments by Respondent No.1's Counsel:
- The lower courts had concurred that the Appellant failed to prove ownership.
- The property was registered in the name of Respondent No.2, indicating her ownership.
- The Appellant did not prove the property was benami under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

3. Arguments by Respondent No.2's Counsel:
- The Appellant's claim of benami transaction was not supported by law.
- During cross-examination, the Appellant admitted that Respondent No.2 had repaid a significant loan, indicating her independent income.
- Respondent No.2 had various documents proving her income and ownership, which the Appellant failed to counter with evidence.

4. Court's Observations:
- The Appellant did not produce documents supporting his claim of ownership.
- The Appellant admitted that the lottery business was jointly registered, implying shared income.
- The court emphasized that a party must establish their case by a preponderance of probability and cannot rely solely on the weaknesses of the opposite party's case.
- The Appellant's claims were demolished during cross-examination, and he failed to establish even a prima facie case.

5. Legal Precedents:
- The court referred to Union of India and Others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Others (AIR 2014 SC 937), which held that a plaintiff must prove their title by sufficient evidence, irrespective of the defendant's case.
- In Modula India vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo (AIR 1989 SC 162), the Supreme Court held that a defendant has the right to cross-examine and argue but cannot lead their own evidence if their defence is struck out.

6. Conclusion on Issue B:
- The non-filing of a Written Statement by Respondent No.2 to the Counter-Claim could be seen as an admission, but she effectively demolished the Appellant's case through cross-examination.
- The court determined that the Appellant failed to establish his ownership claim, and the substantial question of law was resolved accordingly.

Conclusion:
The concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. The court concluded that the Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of ownership, and the non-filing of a Written Statement by Respondent No.2 did not automatically entitle the Appellant to the relief sought. The court emphasized the necessity of proving one's case by a preponderance of evidence, irrespective of the opponent's case.

---