Benami transactions and second appeal review: clear proof is required, and fact findings stand unless perverse.

A plea of benami will displace the presumption that the ostensible purchaser is the owner only when proved by clear and convincing evidence, including the source of consideration, possession, motive, relationship, custody of title deeds and subsequent conduct; on the facts, the sale deed was held not to be benami and title could not be claimed on that basis. In second appeal, interference with factual findings is confined to cases of perversity or absence of evidence under Section 100 CPC; the first appellate court's findings on title and possession were reasoned and evidence-based, so no substantial question of law arose and the plaintiff's claims for declaration, possession and injunction failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale deed dated 26.06.1930 was a benami transaction and the plaintiff had proved title on that basis. (ii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction, and whether any interference was warranted in second appeal with the findings of the first appellate court.

Issue (i): Whether the sale deed dated 26.06.1930 was a benami transaction and the plaintiff had proved title on that basis.

Analysis: A plea of benami displaces the normal presumption that the ostensible purchaser is the owner only if it is proved by cogent evidence. The relevant guideposts are the source of purchase money, the nature of possession after purchase, the motive for the transaction, the relationship of the parties, custody of the title deed, and subsequent conduct. On the evidence, the first appellate court found that the alleged motive was not established, the recitals in the sale deed did not support the plaintiff's version, the cash component was shown to have been paid by the recorded purchaser, and the surrounding circumstances did not establish that the recorded owner was only a name-lender.

Conclusion: The plea of benami was not proved, and the finding that Ex.A1 was not a benami transaction stands in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction, and whether any interference was warranted in second appeal with the findings of the first appellate court.

Analysis: The first appellate court, after considering the additional evidence, held against the plaintiff on title and possession. In second appeal, interference with findings of fact is limited by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and is justified only where the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The findings recorded by the first appellate court were based on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and did not suffer from perversity. Mere possibility of another view was insufficient to reopen the factual conclusions.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs claimed, and no substantial question of law arose to justify interference in second appeal.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal failed, and the decree of the first appellate court rejecting the plaintiff's claim was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, concurrent or well-reasoned findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence, and a benami plea must be proved by clear and convincing evidence on the settled indicia of such a transaction.

---