TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hers for partition and for recovery of 1/4th share of the plaintiff in the plaint scheduled properties. That the original plaintiff Smt. P. Leelavathi and the original defendants are the sister and brothers and the daughter and sons of Late G. Venkata Rao, who died on 08.10.1974. 2.1 It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that her father Late G. Venkata Rao was an Estate Agent and he was doing money lending business in his name and also in the names of his sons and he was purchasing properties in the names of his sons, though his father was funding those properties. According to the plaintiff, at the time of his death, G. Venkata Rao was in possession of a large estate comprising of immoveable properties, bank deposits etc. shown in the plaint schedule. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the suit schedule properties were as such joint family properties and/or they were purchased in fact by their late father G. Venkata Rao and the same was funded by their father. That, it was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/4th share in all the said properties belonging to her father. It was the case on behalf of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lable at Premises No. 138, Aga Abbas Ali Road, Bangalore was not worth mentioning inasmuch as the pieces left could be counted on finger tips. The value of the entire hold effects would not exceed Rs. 400.00. Only Items 10, 12, 19, 20, 21 and 22 out of the said premises were valuable articles of the deceased. The other items never existed at any point of time. The plaintiff had the best of things from her father while he was alive. She was the recipient of favours shown by her father from time to time. The deceased stretched his generosity even to his soninlaw, the husband of the plaintiff. The deceased in fact emptied his resources at the calls of her daughter and her husband. The soninlaw also collected cash from the deceased. The plaintiff and her husband are also due in a sum of Rs. 3000/borrowed by them under a pronote dated 11.06.1966 from the deceased and defendant No. 3. They are also due a sum of Rs. 1500/under another pronote dated 29.11.1966 payable to the deceased. The above amounts also carry interest at stipulated rates. The defendants serve their right to recover the said amounts through proper legal remedies. The plaintiff constructed a house bearing No. 150, Veerap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the suit? 9) To what reliefs is the plaintiff entitled? Additional Issue: Is the claim of the plaintiff barred by Section 2 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition of Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 as alleged? 3.2 That the learned trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the suit schedule properties are not the selfacquired properties of Late G. Venkata Rao; suit Item Nos. I(a), I(b) and I(c) are the properties of original defendant Nos. 1 to 3; the bank deposits mentioned in Scheduled II of the plaint are the personal properties of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The learned trial Court further observed and held that in respect of moveable properties mentioned in Schedule V as suit Item Nos. 10, 12, 19, 20, 21 and 22, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share and therefore the learned trial Court granted the decree for recovery of 1/4th share to the plaintiff which was hardly worth Rs. 400/( sic) available in the premises bearing No. 138/A (New No. 6) Armstrong Road, Civil Station, Bangalore. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit and holding that the suit schedule prope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the High Court has committed a grave error in dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit. 6.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the Courts below have materially erred in not accepting the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties acquired in the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were benami in nature. 6.2 It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court that the suit properties acquired in the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were not benami in nature, but were the selfacquired properties of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are contrary to the evidence on record. 6.3 It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that it has come in evidence that the sale consideration was paid by the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3. It is submitted that DW1 admitted that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,030/from his father Late G. Venkata Rao and that Late G. Venkata Rao sent a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 1,030/direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lf of the defendants that, in the present case, all the three suit properties were purchased by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 by registered sale deeds and some financial assistance was given by the father Late G. Venkata Rao, which was given to the plaintiff also. It is submitted that, in the present case, it has come on record that the plaintiff married with PW1 in the year 1954; the marriage of the plaintiff was performed by Late G. Venkata Rao; and that after the marriage of the plaintiff, Late G. Venkata Rao and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were living together. It is submitted that it has also come on record that Late G. Venkata Rao provided the financial assistance to the plaintiff to acquire the house bearing No. 150, Veerapillai Street, Civil Station, Bangalore. It is submitted that even the evidence on record would disclose that after the marriage, the plaintiff and her husband were maintained by her father for a period of 10 years. It is submitted that, considering the aforesaid circumstances, as rightly observed by the High Court, the intention of Late G. Venkata Rao in providing financial assistance to his sons for acquisition of properties was to provide shelter to his sons and, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate G. Venkata Rao to purchase the suit properties in the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 was to purchase for and on behalf of the family and, therefore, the transaction cannot be said to be benami in nature. 8.1 Therefore, the short question that is posed for consideration of this Court is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and merely because some financial assistance has been given by the father to the sons to purchase the properties, can the transactions be said to benami in nature? 9. While considering the aforesaid question, few decisions of this Court on the benami transactions/transactions of benami nature, are required to be referred to: 9.1 In the case of Thakur Bhim Singh (supra), it is observed and held by this Court that while considering a particular transaction as benami, the intention of the person who contributed the purchase money is determinative of the nature of transaction. It is further observed by this Court as to what the intention of the person who contributed the purchase money, has to be decided on the basis of the surrounding circumstance; the relationship of the parties; the motives governing their action in bringing about the tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d (6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale." 18. The principle governing the determination of the question whether a transfer is a benami transaction or not may be summed up thus: (1) the burden of showing that a transfer is a benami transaction lies on the person who asserts that it is such a transaction; (2) it is proved that the purchase money came from a person other than the person in whose favour the property is transferred, the purchase is prima facie assumed to be for the benefit of the person who supplied the purchase money, unless there is evidence to the contrary; (3) the true character of the transaction is governed by the intention of the person who has contributed the purchase money and (4) the question as to what his intention was has to be decided on the basis of the surrounding circumstances, the relationship of the parties, the motives governing their action in bringing about the transaction and their subsequent conduct, etc." 9.2 In Binapani Paul case (supra), this Court again had an occasion to consider the nature of benami transactions. After considering a catena of decisions of this Court on the point, th....