Benami ownership and section 10 of the Estate Duty Act were tested against evidence of possession, title and control.

In estate duty proceedings, the department must prove that property standing in another person's name is benami, and section 10 applies only where the donee did not immediately assume bona fide possession and enjoyment to the entire exclusion of the donor. On the evidence, the Feelkhana house was excluded from the deceased's estate because the daughter had dealt with it as owner and used the proceeds for family purposes, while the son-in-law's credit entry did not by itself establish benami acquisition. The Kachiguda house and the lorry were included in the estate because title to the house had not vested in the daughter and the lorry's registration in the son-in-law's name did not displace the inference of the deceased's ownership.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the house property at Feelkhana formed part of the deceased's estate as benami property or under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act. (ii) Whether the house property at Kachiguda and the lorry bearing registration No. APV 175 formed part of the deceased's estate.

Issue (i): Whether the house property at Feelkhana formed part of the deceased's estate as benami property or under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act.

Analysis: Where property stands in the name of a person other than the deceased, the department bears the burden of proving that the transaction was benami. For application of section 10, it must also be shown that the donee did not immediately assume bona fide possession and enjoyment to the entire exclusion of the donor. The material on record showed that the daughter had sold and repurchased the property, had dealt with it as owner, and had utilised the proceeds for family purposes. The fact that part of the mortgage proceeds was credited in the son-in-law's capital account did not, by itself, establish that the original acquisition or construction was benami in the deceased's hands.

Conclusion: The Feelkhana house did not form part of the deceased's estate.

Issue (ii): Whether the house property at Kachiguda and the lorry bearing registration No. APV 175 formed part of the deceased's estate.

Analysis: The statement of the case showed that title to the Kachiguda house had not vested in the daughter, and the fact that the lorry stood in the name of the son-in-law, who acted as power of attorney, did not displace the inference that the properties continued to belong to the deceased's estate. No sufficient challenge was made to the inclusion of these properties in the estate.

Conclusion: The Kachiguda house and the lorry bearing registration No. APV 175 formed part of the deceased's estate.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by excluding the Feelkhana house from the estate while sustaining inclusion of the Kachiguda house and the lorry, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In estate duty proceedings, the department must prove a benami claim, and property cannot be treated as passing under section 10 unless the statutory requirements of want of bona fide possession and enjoyment to the exclusion of the donor are established by evidence.

---