Fiduciary-capacity exception under benami law requires concrete proof; bare possession documents cannot sustain ownership claims.

A claim to invoke the fiduciary-capacity exception to the benami prohibition requires concrete pleadings and credible documents showing a legally recognisable fiduciary relationship and identifiable contribution from known sources; bare assertions and possession-related documents are insufficient to displace the statutory bar. On that basis, the plaint was treated as lacking a cause of action and rejected under Order VII Rule 11, while the connected claimant was held entitled to possession and injunction, with interim mesne profits allowed after occupation was treated as unauthorised.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff's plea that the property was held in a fiduciary capacity and fell within the statutory exception to benami prohibition was made out; (ii) whether the pleadings and documents disclosed a cause of action or were liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and (iii) whether the defendant in the connected suit was entitled to possession, injunction and mesne profits.

Issue (i): whether the plaintiff's plea that the property was held in a fiduciary capacity and fell within the statutory exception to benami prohibition was made out.

Analysis: The pleadings asserted joint business dealings, contribution of funds, and a fiduciary holding, but no documentary material was produced to show any fiduciary relationship, any identifiable source of funds, any partnership or joint corpus, or any payment towards the purchase or construction of the property. The claimed possession, payment of house tax, utility bills, and income-tax returns showing nil income from house property were treated as evidence of possession, not ownership. The statutory exceptions were construed strictly, and the exception based on fiduciary capacity was held unavailable in the absence of credible material showing a legally cognisable fiduciary relationship or flow of funds from known sources.

Conclusion: The plaintiff's benami-based ownership plea failed, and the statutory exception was held not to apply.

Issue (ii): whether the pleadings and documents disclosed a cause of action or were liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Since the plaint admitted title in the defendant's predecessor and produced no material to substantiate the alleged fiduciary arrangement or contribution, the claim was held to be unsupported by material particulars. The ownership claim was also found barred by the benami prohibition. On that basis, the suit was treated as lacking a cause of action and the amendment seeking a declaration of sole ownership did not alter that conclusion.

Conclusion: The plaintiff's suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (iii): whether the defendant in the connected suit was entitled to possession, injunction and mesne profits.

Analysis: Once the plaintiff's claim to title and continued possession failed, the occupation was treated as unauthorised after termination of the licence. On that basis, the defendant in the connected suit was held entitled to recover possession and to restrain creation of third-party rights. Mesne profits were awarded on an interim basis at the assessed residential rate, with arrears directed to be paid and continuing liability fixed until delivery of possession.

Conclusion: The connected suit was decreed for possession and permanent injunction, and mesne profits were allowed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment denies the plaintiff's ownership-based challenge, rejects the plaint in the main suit, and simultaneously grants the connected claimant possession, injunction, and interim mesne profits on the footing that the occupation was unauthorised.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim to invoke the fiduciary-capacity exception to the benami prohibition must be supported by concrete pleadings and credible documents showing a legally recognisable fiduciary relationship and identifiable contribution from known sources; bare assertions and possession-related documents are insufficient to displace the statutory bar or sustain a cause of action.

---