PUSHPALATA versus VIJAY KUMAR (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 85 · Decided: 05-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
85
PUSHPALATA
v.
 VIJAY KUMAR (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4078 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – s.4(3)(a) –
Original first plaintiff-Karta of HUF purchased properties in name
of minor sons (first and second defendants) – First property-the
suit property which was bought in the name of first defendant was
later sold by him – Suit filed by Original first plaintiff on behalf of
himself, his wife (who later passed away) and two daughters, against
his two sons (first and second defendants) and the purchasers of
the property, for setting aside of the sale deed and for declaration
of title – Plaintiffs urged that they and the first and second
defendants, were members of a HUF, and that first defendant was a
benami owner who could not have alienated the suit property – Suit
dismissed – On appeal, held: One who alleges that a property is
benami and is held, nominally, on behalf of the real owner- in cases
which form the exception, u/s.4(3)- has to displace the initial burden
of proving that fact – Such proof can be through evidence, or
cumulatively through circumstances – In the present case, the first
plaintiff had proved that the properties were purchased, with his
funds, and the sons were minors, with no source of income – The
second defendant’s position throughout all the proceedings was that
the properties were that of the first plaintiff i.e., he admitted to the
suit averments – The plaintiff also proved that he had possession of
the property, by adducing positive evidence of tenants, who paid
rent to him – In these circumstances, the elements necessary to
establish benami ownership within the meaning of s.4 (3) (a) of the
1988 Act, in terms of the judgments in Binapani Paul and Valliammal
have been satisfied by the first plaintiff – Conclusions drawn by
the trial court and first appellate court are plainly erroneous, given
the evidence on record – High Court fell into error in not noticing
the correct position in law – Suit decreed fully.
   [2022] 18 S.C.R. 85
85
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
Constitution of India – Article 136 – Discretionary nature of
jurisdiction – Interference with concurrent findings – Held: It is
correct that the Court would rarely interfere with concurrent findings
however, the jurisdiction u/Article 136 is wide, and in exceptional
cases, interference is called for.
Marcel Martins v. M. Printer (2012) 5 SCC 342,
Collector Singh v. L.M.L. Ltd (2015) 2 SCC 410: [2014]
13 SCR 735, Nizam v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 1 SCC
550 : [2015] 10 SCR 786 Binapani Paul v. Pratima
Ghosh (2007) 6 SCC 100 : [2007] 5 SCR 264 ,
Valliammal v. Subramaniam [2004] Supp 1 SCR 966
– relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2004] Supp 1 SCR 966
relied on
Para 10
[2007] 5 SCR 264
relied on
Para 21
[2012] 5 SCC 342
relied on
Para 22
[2014] 13 SCR 735
relied on
Para 27
[2015] 10 SCR 786
relied on
Para 28
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4078
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2013 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in S.A. No.1738 of 2005.
Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv., Kunal Verma, Ashwin Kumar Nair,
Advs. for the Appellant.
D. K. Thakur, Abhishek Kumar, Ms. Deeksha Saggi, Ram Lal
Roy, K. Krishna Kumar, Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Varinder Kumar
Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. With the consent of the parties, this matter is heard finally. The
present appeal challenges a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
87
at Jabalpur, dismissing the petitioners’ second appeal1 and affirming the
order and decree passed by the trial court2.
Facts and contentions:
2. The original first plaintiff – Laxmi Prasad, was the karta of a
Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) consisting of his wife, Janki Bai (second
plaintiff), two daughters - Sarita and Pushpalata (second and third
plaintiffs), and two sons – Vijay Kumar and Rajendra Kumar (the first
two defendants). The parties are hereafter referred by name, or as
‘plaintiffs’ and ‘defendants’.
3. Laxmi Prasad purchased a property measuring 1.6 acres at
Khasra No. 44/2 (in Bandobast No. 102, Patwari Halka No. 65 in Lalipur
Ward) by agreement dated 15.02.1960 (hereafter “first property”). This
first property was purchased in the name of Vijay Kumar (i.e., his son
and first defendant). Another piece of property measuring 2332 

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