TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 725
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he legal representatives of Malaya Gounder on the basis of an alleged will executed by him in their favour. Valliammal died intestate without any issue during the pendency of the appeal in this Court on 10.8.2001 and after her death her share has devolved on the defendants/respondents being the nearest collateral. Ammaniammal also died on 22.11.2001 and is now represented through her children. The land measuring 10.37 1/2 acres (suit land) belonged to Malaya Gounder, plaintiff and his younger brother, Marappa Gounder. Marappa Gounder stood guarantee for his Uncle Chinnamalai Gounder in a loan transaction advance by one Samasundaram Chettiar who was a money-lender for a sum of Rs. 200/-. Samasundaram Chettiar filed a suit being OS No. 338 of 1925 against Chinnamalai Gounder as well as the guarantor. Marappa Gounder died in the year 1923 and was succeeded to by his brother Malaya Gounder, as the legal representative of Marappa Gounder. Suit was decreed against the debtor as well as the guarantor. They were made jointly liable. Suit land was sold on 1.8.1927 in the auction to satisfy the decree passed in OS No. 338 of 1925. Land was purchased by one Chockalingam Chettiar. Chockalin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the suit land was disputed. According to them, plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land. After the court sale, Ramayee Ammal being the vendee from auction purchase became the absolute owner. She executed a will and bequeathed the suit land in their favour. The case put forth by the plaintiff that the property was purchased in the name of Ramayee Ammal as benami on his behalf to safeguard the same from some other creditors of Marappa Gupunder was denied. According to them, the brothers of Ramayee Ammal who were well to do provided money and helped her in acquiring the suit land. Regarding the mortgage and the partition effected by the plaintiff it was averred that the same were fraudulent transactions without the knowledge of the real owner. If Ramayee Ammal was not the real owner, she would not have executed the registered will in their favour on 28.1.1974. Accordingly, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. Trial Court after taking into consideration evidence both oral and documentary into consideration decreed the suit and held that Ramayee Ammal was holding the property benami on behalf of the Malaya Gounder, the original plaintiff. It was also held that the propert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urden lies on the person who pleads that the recorded owner is a benami-holder. This Court in a number of judgments has held that it is well- established that burden of proving that a particular sale is benami lies on the person who alleges the transaction to be a benami. The essence of a benami transaction is the intention of the party or parties concerned and often, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof. Referred to Jaydayal Poddar Vs. Bibi Hazra, 1974 (1) SCC 3; Krishnanand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1977 (1) SCC 816; Thakur Bhim Singh Vs. Thakur Kan Singh, 1980 (3) SCC 72; His Highness Maharaja Pratap Singh Vs. Her Highness Maharani Sarojini Devi & Ors., 1994 (Supp. (1) SCC 734; and Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra Vs. Heirs of Parshottam S. Shah, 1996 (4) SCC 490. It has been held that in the judgments referred to above that the question whether a particular sale is a benami or not, is largely one of fact, and fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... absolute owner of the property. By a registered will dated 28.1.1974 she bequeathed the suit land to her daughters defendants/respondents. The presumption in favour of Ramayee Ammal could be displaced only if her husband Malaya Gounder, the original plaintiff, was able to prove that there were circumstances which warranted the purchase of the property benami in the name of his wife. The plaintiff, in order to prove that he was the real owner of the property was required to show that there were valid reasons for purchase of the property in the name of his wife and that he had paid the money for the purchase of the land. Plaintiff in his evidence as PW1 admitted that neither his brother nor he himself had any creditors in the year 1933 when the land was purchased by his wife Ramayee Ammal. Therefore, the reason given by him for the purchase of the land in the name of his wife is not plausible. It also appears from his deposition that he had some other pieces of land in another village which were recorded in his name. Names of prospective creditors have not been disclosed. If there were any unsatisfied creditors then they would have proceeded against the plaintiff for the recovery of....