OM PRAKASH [email protected]. JOSHI versus RAJENDRA PRASAD SHEWDA & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 10 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 09-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 574 
OM PRAKASH [email protected]. JOSHI 
v. 
RAJENDRA PRASAD SHEWDA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.8609-8610 of 2009) 
OCTOBER 09, 2015 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Hindu law: Property dispute - Purchase of property by 
husband in the name of wife - Held: In the instant case, 
C property was purchased from the funds of husband for the 
benefit of his wife and therefore she was the real owner of the 
property- This was in accordance with the practice prevailing 
in a Hindu family where husband normally looks after and 
0 
manages the property of the wife - Benami transaction -
Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. 
Adoption: Claim over property by plaintiff on the ground 
that the said property devolved upon her husband who was 
E adopted by the o,wner of the said property- -Defendant no. 1 
was also the adopted son of daughter of the owner of the 
property- Dispute regarding such adoptions - Held: Plaintiff 
failed to prove that his adoption was valid - Evidence of 
witnesses were not admissible uls.32(5) and (6) inasmuch 
F as on the date when the said evidence was recordea the 
controversy with regard to adoption of plaintiff's husband had 
already occurred - If plaintiff failed to prove his adoption then 
it must be held that suit property devolved upon the daughter 
of the owner of the suit property- Claim of defendant no. 1 to 
G be adopted son could have been challenged only by such 
legal heirs on whom the property would have devolved 
following the death of owner in the event the adoption of 
defendant no. 1 is to be held to be invalid- No such challenge 
was made - High Court was justified in not entering into the 
H issue of validity of adoption of defendant no. 1 as such issue 
574 
' 
OM PRAKASH SHARMA@ O.P. JOSHI v. RAJENDRA 
575 
PRASAD SHEWDA 
had become redundant- Evidence Act, 1872- ss.32(5) and A 
(6). 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Th~ purchase of property by a husband in 8 
the name of his wife is a specie of Benami purchase that 
had been prevalent in India since ancient times. Such a 
practice appears to have been prevalent on account of 
the position of Hindu women to succession until the 
enactment of the Hindu Succession Act and the c 
amendments made thereto from time to time. In a 
situation where a Hindu widow had a limited right to the 
estate of the deceased husband under the Hindu 
Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, the purchase of 
immov~ble property by a husband in the name of the o 
wife in order to provide the wife with a secured life in the 
event of the death of the husband was an acknowledged 
and accepted feature of Indian life which even finds 
recognition in the explanation clause to Section 3 of the 
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The High E 
Court was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion 
that the property though purchased from the funds of 
husband was really for the benefit of his widow and 
therefore she was the real owner of the property. The 
fact that the property was managed by husband which F 
fact accords with the practice prevailing in a Hindu family 
where the husband normally looks after and manages 
the property of the wife, is another relevant circumstance 
that was taken note of by the High Court to come to the 
conclusion that all the said established facts are wholly G 
consistent with the ownership of the property by widow. 
[Paras 10, 12] [581-E-G; 584-D-H] 
2. The plaintiff herself alongwith PW-2 were the 
witnesses who have testified in support of the claim of H 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A adoption of her husband. Specifically, PW-2 though had 
stated that the adoption of husband of plaintiff took place 
40 years back she could not recollect her own age; she 
had no recollection of number of years prior to the 
adoption when she got married and was unable to recall 
B when her sons got married and most surprisingly the 
age of her elder son at the time pf his marriage; the 
present age of the elder son or even the present calendar 
year. The evidence of the three witnesses would be 
inadmissible under Section 32(5) & (6) of the Evidence 
C Act inasmuch as on the date when the said evidence 
was recorded the controversy with regard to the 
adoption of husband of plaintiff had already occurred. 
The claim of the defendant No.1 to be the adopted son 
0 of the daughter of original owner could have been 
challenged only by such legal heirs on whom the 
property would have 

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