SMT. SATYA GUPTA@MADHU GUPTA versus BRIJESH KUMAR

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 1183 · Decided: 14-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Case Allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. SATYA GUPTA@MADHU GUPTA 
v. 
BRIJESH KUMAR 
AUGUST 14, 1998 
. 
[M.M. PUNCHHI C.J., AND K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 
Benami Transaction-Determination of-Defendant's husband B 
purchased property in the joint names of himself and the plaintiff-Entire 
purchase money came from B-After B died plaintiff filed suit for partition 
A 
B 
of his half share in the property and rendition of account-Plaintiff. except C 
alleging that half of the property belonged to him, had not disclosed how 
and on what basis such a claim was made in the plaint-It was not averred 
in the plaint that B intended the purchase of the property to be for the benefit 
of the plaintiff as we/I-Trial court found that the defendant had discharged 
the initial burden to show that the sale deed in the joint name of the plaintiff 
was only a benami transaction-But trial court found that B intended the D 
property should be of the plaintiff as well and decreed the suit-However, 
Lower Appellate Court disagreed with the view of the trial court regarding 
intention of B as there was no averment in the plaint to that effect-Lower 
Appellate Court found plaintiffs evidence extremely vague and unsatisfactory 
to rebut the presumption that the sale deed was obtained benami by B -
Taking all factors into consideration Lower Appellate Court found that B did E 
not intend to purchase the property for plaintiffs benefit-Held : Jn the 
circumstances of the case, High Court in Second Appeal erred in upsetting 
thefinding of facts by Lower Appellate Court by illegally re-appreciating the 
evidence. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section JOO. 
F 
Finding of fact-By Lower Appellate Court-Based on evidence-
Reversal of-Jn Second Appeal-By High Court-Validity of-Held : High 
Court in Second Appeal cannot reverse the findings of Lower Appellate 
Court on facts by re-appreciation of evidence merely on the ground of the 
possibility of another view. 
G 
The defendant's (deceased appellant) husband, B, purchased the property 
in the joint names of himself and the plaintiff-respondent. The entire purchase 
money came from B. After the death of B, the plaintiff filed a suit for 
partitioning his half share in the property and for rendition of account. The 
plaintiff, except alleging that half of the property belonged to him, had not H 
1183 
1184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A disclosed how and on what basis such a claim was made in the plaint. It was 
not averred in the plaint that B intended the purchase of the property to be 
for the benefit of the plaintiff as well. The trial court found that the defendant 
had discharged the initial burden to show that the sale deed in the joint name 
of the plaintiff was only a benami transaction. But the trial court came to 
B the conclusion that B intended the property should be of the plaintiff as well. 
Consequently, the trail court decreed the suit. However, the Lower Appellate 
Court disagreed with the view of the trial court regarding intention of B as 
there was no averment in the plaint to that effect. The Lower Appellate Court 
found that the plaintifrs evidence was extremely meagre and unsatisfactory 
to rebut the presumption that B obtained the sale deed benami. Taking all 
C factors into consideration the Lower Appellate Court found that B did not 
intend to purchase the property for the plaintifrs benefit and dismissed the 
suit. 
Being aggrieved the plaintiff preferred a Second Appeal to the High 
Court. The High Court after re-appreciating the evidence differed from the 
D conclusions reached on facts by the Lower Appellate Court and allowed the 
Second Appeal. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The trial court and the Lower Appellate Court found that 
E the plaintiff had not disclosed in the plaint how and on what basis the plaintiff 
claimed partition of the property. The Lower Appellate Court also found that 
the plaintifrs evidence was extremely meagre and unsatisfactory. Taking all 
factors into consideration, the Lower Appellate Court found that defendant's 
(deceased appellant) husband did not intend to purchase the house for the 
F plaintifrs benefit. This finding has been upset by the High Court illegally 
by re-appreciating the evidence. This is not permissible. fl 192-B) 
Bhim Singh v. Kan Singh, AIR (1980) SC 727, relied on. 
Gopal Trimbak Bhate v. Keshoosa Vishnoosa lad, AIR (1930) Nag 
G · 185, referred to. 
2. In the instant case, the findings on facts by the Lower Appe

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