TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (6) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r since the said dates, paying kist, etc. According to her, the third defendant has no manner of right to the properties. She would allege that the third defendant married one Saraswati Ammal in or about 1936 and the plaintiff is only one of his concubines, the third defendant having some other concubines also, viz., one Baby Ammal, one Jayalakshmi and one Geetha and no marriage has been solemnized between the plaintiff and the third defendant. The said other concubines also individually own separate properties. The plaintiff states that in respect of the arrears of income-tax due by the third defendant, the first defendant (Income-tax Officer) attached the plaint schedule properties and applied to the Tax Recovery Officer, Chingleput (second defendant) to bring the properties to sale under the execution certificate No. 974/K, dated November, 1968. Before that, the plaintiff had been served with a notice dated June 26, 1967, addressed to the third defendant intimating that the properties would be sold on August 3, 1967. Immediately after the service of the notice, the plaintiff filed a claim petition in July, 1967, under rule 11 of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thereafte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot maintainable in law that the is not the owner of the suit properties, that she had no funds of her own nor funds provided by her father and that no part of the consideration for the sale deeds in respect of the properties in her name passed either from her or from her father. The allegations as to possession and enjoyment of the properties are not true. The title deeds and the plaint schedule lands have always been in the possession of the third defendant who alone was in enjoyment of the suit properties. The entire consideration proceeded only from the third defendant who was a chronic tax defaulter and who placed the properties in the name of the plaintiff with the ulterior motive of screening them from the income-tax department and the creditors. The patta and the kist receipts follow the regular pattern of benami and they have no relation with the outlined existing facts. During the enquiry by the second defendant, no evidence was let in about the adequate means of the plaintiff to purchase the suit items, and, therefore, the order of the second defendant is perfectly valid. There can be no question of advancement by the third defendant in favour of the plaintiff inasmuch as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o had paid the purchase money for all the suit items and as such he is the real owner. The third defendant, it is said having foreseen the tax liability, was purchasing properties in the plaintiff's name to screen them away from the tax recovery proceedings. It was urged that the circumstances appearing in this case did not in any way support a finding of the real title to the properties in the plaintiff. The only question that mainly arises in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is only a benamidar for the third defendant and is thus having no exclusive title to the suit properties; in other words, whether the third defendant is the real owner of the properties, and the next point is whether consequentially the properties could be attached for the recovery of the income-tax arrears due by the third defendant. The plaintiff's case is that she is only one of the concubines of the third defendant and that she has herself purchased the properties out of her own funds and as such the third defendant has no right whatsoever over the properties. The properties detailed in the plaint schedule are situate in Pudupakkam and Kelambakkam Villages of Chingleput District. The sale deeds in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d house. Exhibit A-23 is the house tax receipt standing in her name. Thus, she has demonstratively proved not only by her oral testimony but also by the documentary evidence besides the sale deeds in her name, that she has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. P.W. 2 is the karnam of Pudupakkam Village, where some of the suit items are situate. He states that he was the scribe of exhibits A-7 to A-10 and that P.W. 1 is in enjoyment of the lands purchased by her, paying the kist and personally cultivating the lands with the aid of coolies. With regard to the lands purchased under exhibits A-5 and A-6 in Pudupakkam Village and the lands purchased under exhibit A-4 in Kelambakkam, P. W. 2 says that the plaintiff is in possession of these lands also by paying kist, etc. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 2 amply corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1. As a matter of fact, the first defendant, appellant, who is the sole contestant, does not dispute the fact that the sale deeds are standing in the name of the plaintiff and as such the ostensible title rests with her. But the first defendant contends that despite the sale deeds standing in the name of the plaintiff, the third defend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the transaction is not benami, and that this issue cannot be displaced by mere conjecture or suspicion as to the various circumstances surrounding the transaction since the very object of a benami transaction is secrecy. In the light of the above observations, let us analyse the evidence and documents in this case. The first defendant, appellant, has not chosen to let in any oral evidence to show that the lands have been purchased in the name of the plaintiff for the benefit of the third defendant. The plaintiff as P.W.1 would say in the cross-examination that for the past 15 years, she and the third defendant are not in talking terms and there is no connection whatsoever between them and that her father gave her Rs. 7,000 on one occasion and Rs. 3,000 on a subsequent occasion, in the presence of her mother, and that her mother got this amount from her and lent it for interest and about 25 days prior to her mother's death, the mother gave all the amounts to her, and thus the plaintiff purchased the lands only from out of the amounts given to her by her father. Three years after the death of her father, she would depose that her brothers gave Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 15,000 to her share....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....59, and the next demand notice has been sent only on March 14, 1966, for the arrears for the assessment year 1956-57 for a sum of Rs. 1,208.09. The arrears amounted to huge sums only during the period 1961-62, for which the demand notice has been issued in March, 1966. This demand is long after the execution of exhibits A-3 and A-4. Therefore, the lower court is justified in coming to the conclusion that the sale deeds, exhibits A-3 and A-4, in the name of the plaintiff cannot be said to be benami, created in order to defeat the demand of the income-tax arrears, and that the case of benami cannot be accepted. Coming to the question of the source of consideration, even though it was held that the sale price for the purchase of the lands under exhibits A-3 and A-4 was met by the third defendant, the surrounding circumstances indicate that the amounts should have been paid by the third defendant to the plaintiff only with the intention of benefiting his concubine and that circumstance would justify the finding of title in favour of the plaintiff. Reliance is placed on the decision of this court in Thangayi Ammal v. Gurunatha Gounder [1963] 2 MLJ 151, wherein it was held that if the ....