BINAPANI PAUL versus PRATIMA GHOSH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 946 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BINAPANI PAUL 
~,· -
'-
II. 
PRA TIMA GHOSH AND ORS. 
APRIL 27, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937-Purchase of suit property 
1-
by thefather in his wife's name-Daughter getting the suit property mutated 
c 
in their names on the death of their mother-Daughters filing a suit for 
partition against their brother claiming their share in the suit property-
Brother contending that the purchase of the suit property by the father in the 
name of the mother was a benami transaction; that the mother had limited 
interest and that on her death he became absolute owner of the suit property 
under the Act-Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the daughter-High 
D Court allowing the appeal of the brother holding that the daughter failed 
to discharge her onus in not proving that it is not a benami transaction-
Correctness of-Held, the burden is on the brother to prove that the father 
entered into a benami transaction-On evidences on record, the surrounding 
~ 
L 
'· 
circumstances show that the father had no apparent motive to enter into a 
E 
benami transaction and that the primary motive was for the security of his 
wife and his daughters-Hence suit for partition decreed in favour of the 
daughters-Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988-Transfer of 
Property Act, 1882. 
Appellant's mother purchased suit property by executing a registered 
F power of attorney which was attested by her husband. The mother got the suit 
property mutated in her name during the life time of her husband. After the 
{ 
mother's death, the daughters, including the appellant, got the suit property 
mutated in their names. The daughters were forced to leave the suit property 
due to the ill-treatment by their brother and his wife. The appellant filed a 
suit for partition against her brother-defendant before trial court claiming 
G her share in the suit property. The defendant filed a written statement 
contending that his mother was a benamidar of his father; that she had only 
'( 
a limited interest on the suit property under the Hindu Women's Right tll_ 
Property Act, 1937 and that after her death, he became the absolute owner of; 
the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant died and his 
H 
946 
--
BINAPANI PAUL v. PRATIMA GHOSH 
947 
wife and daughter (respondents 1 and 2), being legal heirs, were brought on A 
-> 
record in the suit. The trial court decreed the suit in favour ohhe appellant 
holding that the father intended to purchase the suit property for the benefit 
of his wife and that it was not a benami transaction. The First Appeal preferred 
by respondents 1 and 2 was allowed by High Court holding that the plaintiff 
failed to discharge the burden that it was not a benami transaction; that the B 
mutation of their names was of no consequence; and that the Dayabhaga School 
of Hindu law prohibits gift of property in favour of his wife. 
-\ 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the High Court 
committed a manifest error in placing onus on the appellant-plaintiff to prove 
that the purchase of the suit property in the name of the wife was not a benami c 
transaction; and that the respondents failed to show any motive or intention 
behind the alleged benami transaction by their father. Respondents 4 to 7 
supported the contentions of the appellant. 
Respondents 1 and 2 contended that the suit property was purchased 
during the period when the purchase in the benami name of wives was widely D 
prevalent; that since the source of money is one of the important factors for 
proving benami transactio, the onus is on the appellant-plaintiff to prove that 
{ 
it is not a benami transaction. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: I. I. The father had no apparent motive for entering into a benami 
transaction. The eagerness of the father to purchase the suit property can be 
seen from the evidences on record. If the father intended to have a benami 
transaction, he would not get his wife described as daughter of somebody 
instead of his own wife. Such unusual step on the part of the father leads to F 
the conclusion that he intended to purchase the suit property for the benefit 
of his wife. (Paras 13, 14 and 15) (954-E, F; 955-C) 
1.2. The execution of a power of attorney may not be of importance but 
then the backdrop of events and the manner in which the power of attorney 
was drafted as well as the very fact that the father himself became

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.