SMT. P. LEELAVATHI (D) BY LRS versus V. SHANKARNARAYANA RAO (D) BY LRS

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 910 · Decided: 09-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
SMT. P. LEELAVATHI (D) BY LRS
v.
V. SHANKARNARAYANA RAO (D) BY LRS
(Civil Appeal No. 1099 of 2008)
APRIL 09, 2019
    [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Suit – Partition – Appellant-original plaintiff claimed 1/4th
share in all the scheduled properties of her late father – Plaintiff
alleged that defendants-her brothers refused to give her 1/4th share
– Plaintiff filed suit for partition – Trial court dismissed the suit by
holding that the suit schedule properties were not the self-acquired
properties of father of the parties and same were the properties of
defendants Nos.1 to 3; the bank deposits mentioned in schedule II
were also the personal properties of defendant Nos.1 to 3 – High
Court vide judgment & order dated 26.02.1999 set aside the
judgment of the trial court and held that though the properties were
in the names of the original defendants, the transactions between
father and defendants were benami in nature – Supreme Court
remitted the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration –
Thereafter, on remand, the High Court confirmed the judgment of
the trial court and held properties were not benami in nature –
Appellant contended that the suit properties acquired in the names
of defendant Nos.1 to 3 were benami in nature – On appeal, held:
Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that source of money
can never be the sole consideration and it is merely one of the
relevant considerations, but not determinative in character – In the
instant case, the High  Court rightly came to the conclusion that
plaintiff failed to prove that the purchase of the suit properties in
the names of defendant Nos.1 to 3 were benami in nature – Plaintiff
had failed to establish and prove the intention of the father to
purchase the suit properties for and on behalf of the family, which
were purchased in the names of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 – Late
father of plaintiff had also assisted her and her husband to purchase
a residential house – Similarly, the intention of the late father was
to give the financial assistance to defendant Nos.1 to 3-sons and
helped them in purchase of the properties – The transaction of
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 910
              910
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
911
purchase of the suit properties cannot be said to be benami in nature
– Therefore, the plaintiff has no right to claim 1/4thshare in the suit
properties – Benami Transactions (Prohibition of Right to Recover
Property) Ordinance, 1988 – Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act,
1988.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Applying the law laid down by Supreme Court in
the various decisions to the facts of the case on hand, this Court
is of the opinion that the High Court has rightly come to the
conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the purchase
of the suit properties – Item Nos. I(a) to I(c) in the names of
defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were benami in nature.   It is true that, at
the time of purchase of the suit properties – Item Nos. I(a) to
I(c), some financial assistance was given by their late father.
However, as observed by this Court in the various decisions,
that cannot be the sole determinative factor/circumstance to hold
the transaction as benami in nature.  The plaintiff has miserably
failed to establish and prove the intention of the father to purchase
the suit properties for and on behalf of the family, which were
purchased in the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3.  It is required
to be noted that, as such, the plaintiff – daughter has not stepped
into the witness box and that the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff
has been given by her husband who, as such, can be said to be an
outsider, so far as the joint family is concerned.   Apart from that,
it has come on record that the plaintiff and her husband were
maintained by late father of plaintiff.  The financial assistance was
also given to the plaintiff and her husband to purchase the
residential house at Bangalore. Father of plaintiff, therefore,
provided a shelter to his daughter and, as observed herein above,
also gave the financial assistance to purchase the residential house
at Bangalore.  It has also come on record that their late father
even purchased the share certificates and his daughter-original
plaintiff was also given certain number of shares.  Therefore,
considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
their late father also must have given the financial assistance to
defendant Nos. 1 to 3 – sons and help

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