HEIRS OF VRAJLAL J. GANATRA versus HEIRS OF PARSHOTTAM S. SHAH

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 30-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HEIRS OF VRAJLAL J. GANATRA 
v. 
HEIRS OF PARSHOTTAM S. SHAH 
APRIL 30, 1996 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Suit for possession-By real owner from 
an ostensible owner-On the basis of benami transaction-Held, the burden 
of proof is 011 the person who asserts it. 
The Appellants filed a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration that 
A 
B 
c 
the suit property, belonged to them and not to the defendants though the 
name of defendant was shown in the sale deed. That suit was for a 
declaration and consequential injunction restraining the defendants from 
disturbing the possession. The Plaintiffs contended that he was the real 
owner though the defendant's name was show in the sale deed, that the D 
plaintiff was a dealer in land transactions and the defendant was a money 
lender,. that the plaintiff borrowed money from the defendant for purchase 
or prQ:i>erties on an understanding that on clearance of loan the property 
woul.d be reconveyed. The Plaintiff also contended that on earlier occasion 
the defendant had taken the property in this name and reconveyed the E 
same after clearance of loan by the plaintiff. The suit was filed in 1981. 
The trial court dismissed the suit and held that the plaintiff has failed to 
prove that he was the real owner and that he had failed to establish that 
he was in possession of the suit property. 
The Appeal preferred by the Plaintiff was dismissed by the High 
F 
Court and the findings of the trial court were affirmed. The High Court 
held that the suit was time barred and that the intention when the sale 
deed was taken was nothing other than making the defendant owner of the 
property although it might have been thought that that if the plaintiff 
would pay the amount which defendant had shelled out,.the property would G 
be reconveyed to the plaintiff. The High Court did not go into the question 
of possession. 
Before this court it was contended by the heirs of the plaintiff that 
on earlier occasion there were similar dealings between the parties and it 
. has an impact on the crucial question relating to the present transaction; H 
67 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A that the High Court failed to decide the question of possession of land; 
and that in fact the land was in the possession of the plaintiff and 
continues to be in the possession of the appellants. 
Dismissing the Appeal tlh Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The burden of proof on a question whether the transaction 
is a benami transaction depends on the person who asserts it. If it is 
proved that the purchase money came from a person other than the 
ostensible owner there can be a factual presumption that the purchase was 
for the benefit of the person who supplied purchase money. This is of 
C course a rebuttable presumption. [70-E-G] 
Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Bihari Khare, [1989] SCR 621 = JT (1989) 
l SC 275; R. Rajagopal Reddy (D) by Lrs. & Ors. v. Padmini Chandra 
Sekaran (D) by Lrs., JT (1995) 2 SC 667; Bhim Singh (D) by Lrs. and another 
v. Kan Singh, AIR (1980) SC, 727; Controller of Estate Duties, Lucknow v. 
D Alike Mitra, AIR (1981) SC 102 and His Highness Maharaja Pratap Singh v. 
E 
Her Highness Maharani Sarojini Devi, [1994] Suppl. (1) SCC 734, referred 
to. 
2. The document riled upon by the appellants contains a clear recital 
that the land would remain with the defendant as security for the amount 
advanced by him and when plaintiff paid back all the amounts outstanding 
from him, the defendants would give back the property and execute a 
registered deed for that purpose. If this was the safeguard adopted by the 
the plaintiff relating the another sale transaction which took took place 
just one year prior to the relevant transaction, the fact that such a 
F 
safeguard was not adopted in the present case is sufficient to suggest that 
the intention was otherwise. [71-D-E] 
G 
3. As the plaintiff claim possession only as the true owner of the land, 
it is not necessary to consider the question of possession separately unless 
his title was upheld by the court. The presumption is that the possession 
would follow title. That presumption is stronger in this case as it is noted 
that the property remained as a bare land. No particular act of possession 
could normally be pointed to establish possessio.1. Non-consideration of 
the question of possession in such a situation is inconsequential though it 
is agreed that the plaintiff had failed to establish

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