1976 (2) TMI 189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g that the appellants unlawfully trespassed on 5th March, 1970, cut and removed the crops raised by the respondent the suit was instituted for declaration, of the respondent s title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession with mcsne profits. 2. The case of the appellants was that though the suit properties were purchased in the name of the first appellant's mother, the consideration for the purchase of the properties came from the appellant's father, viz., Madurai Naicker, and therefore, the suit properties were the joint family properties, and Palani Ammal had no title to the properties, and consequently the respondent did not derive any title from Palani Ammal. In short the case of the appellants was that the purc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Court, primajacie, the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. 4. However, Mr. R. Sundaravaradan the learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that there are two decisions, one by this Court and another-by the Privy Council holding that when a husband purchased property out of his own money in the name of his wife, the burden of proving that the wife was intended to be the beneficial owner thereof is on the person who claims that the property was the absolute property of the wife. In support of his contention, he relied on the observation contained in a Bench judgment of this Court, viz., Palani Mudaliar and Anr. v. M. Natarajan alias Amalor-pavanatkan and Anr. (1942) 1 M.L.J. 528 : 55 L.W. 2941 I.L.R. 1942 (Mad.) 84....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e in India by a native of India of property in India in the name of his wife unexplained by other proved or admitted facts is to be regarded as a benami transaction by which the beneficial interest in the property is in the husband, although the ostensible title is in the wife. The rule of the law of England that such a purchase by a husband in England is to be assumed to be a purchase for the advancement of the wife does not apply in India. 6. On the face of this, this decision did not deal with any burden of proof at all, and, therefore, the same is also not of any assistance to the appellants herein. Mr. R. Sundaravaradan, the learned Counsel for the appellants, made it absolutely clear that in such a case even though the burden in th....