TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purchased the 1st item of the suit property on 14.02.1971, 2nd item on 03.04.1978, 3rd item on 15.11.1999, 4th item on 19.11.1999, 5th item on 14.07.2003. Except Lakshmi Ammal, no one has got any right, title in the suit properties. She was enjoying the suit property till her life time. She died intestate on 08.05.2007 leaving behind appellants and respondent as the legal heirs to succeed to her estate. The respondent and appellants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as co-owners. Respondent felt that, it is no more feasible to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. She issued notice on 27.08.2007 to the appellants 1 to 3 to divide the suit properties into seven equal shares and allot her one share. The appellants 1 to 3 received notice and gave a reply with false averments. Therefore, the suit. 4. The case of the appellants, in brief, is as follows. The written statement was filed by deceased first defendant kannapiran and adopted by other defendants, namely the appellants. It is denied that the suit properties were purchased by Lakshmi Ammal. Lakshmi Ammal was house wife. The suit properties were purchased by her husband Kannapir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that Kannapiran purchased the suit properties, benami, in the name of his wife, for his benefit. On the other hand, documents filed in the case show that the suit properties were independent and self-acquired properties of Lakshmi Ammal. Kannapiran has no right to execute Will or Settlement deed in respect of the suit properties in favour of appellants 1 and 2. Thus, reversed the finding of the trial Court and decreed the suit for partition as claimed in the plaint. Challenging the said judgment, the appellants/defendants have filed this Second Appeal. 8. The following substantial question of law arised for consideration of this Second Appeal, When the trial Court found that the suit properties were purchased by deceased first defendant Kannapiran in the name of his wife Lakshmi Ammal, as benami and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim share of the suit properties, whether the reversal of the said finding, by the First Appellate Court, stating that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of Lakshmi Ammal without any evidence can be sustained? 9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Lakshmi Ammal was house wife and she had no independent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nami is not applicable to purchase of property by a person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter, if he is able to prove that the property had not been purchased for their benefit, but purchased for his benefit. "8 .............. Since the plaintiff is the husband who had the right to enter into a benami transaction in the matter of purchase of property in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter, as we have held earlier, he is entitled to enforce his rights in the properties concerned if he can succeed in showing that he had purchased them benami in the name of his wife. But in view of the statutory presumption incorporated in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, he can get relief sought in the suit only if he can prove that the properties concerned had not been purchased for the benefit of the wife, even if he succeeds in showing that the consideration for the purchases of the properties had been paid by him." 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court has picked some part of the evidence of PW1 to come to conclusion that PW1/respondent admitted that the suit properties were purchased by her father in the name of her mother.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... benefit, but for his benefit. In support of their case, appellants heavily relied on the recitals in Exhibit B1, wherein, it is mentioned that the suit properties were purchased from the income of Kannapiran in the name of his wife Lakshmi Ammal. He also relied on the deposition of PW1/respondent that the suit properties were purchased by her father in the name of his wife. That apart, it is claimed that Kannapiran was working in railways and earning sufficient income to purchase properties and on the other hand Lakshmi Ammal was only a house wife and she had no independent income. 14. Perusal of oral and documentary evidence shows that there is recital in Exhibit B1 Will that the suit properties were purchased from the income of Kannapiran. There is also an admission by PW1 that the suit properties were purchased by her father in the name of her mother. However, she also claims that her mother's family is rich family and they provided funds to her mother. Using that funds, she purchased the suit properties. But, there is no evidence to support this claim. Entire evidence has to be taken into consideration for taking a decision. It is the consistent evidence of PW1 that suit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Exhibit B1 Will and come to the conclusion. Neither party has produced evidence to show that whether Exhibit B1 original was sent for analysis by handwriting expert or the report was given on the basis of analysis of xerox copy. Therefore, this Court does not want to dwell on this. Moreover, the concerned expert has not been examined before the Trial Court. Therefore, not much reliance can be based on Exhibit A13 report. However, there are other evidences available to conclude that the suit properties were treated as self-acquired properties of Lakshmi Ammal. 17. It is pertinent to refer to recitals in Exhibit A8 release deed, Exhibits A9 to A11 settlement deeds. Exhibit A8 release deed is dated 06.06.2007. It was executed by deceased Kannapiran, and defendants 4 to 6 in favour of appellants 1 and 2/defendants 2 and 3. It is recited in this release deed that the properties covered in this release deed were acquired by deceased Lakshmi Ammal. Similar recitals are found in Exhibits A9, A10 and A11 settlement deeds. In these documents, it is clearly mentioned that the suit properties were purchased in the name of Lakshmi Ammal. There is no specific mention that her husband Kannapira....