V. SHANKARANARAYANA RAO (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus LEELAVATHY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 417 · Decided: 11-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
V. SHANKARANARA YANA RAO (D) BY LRS. & ORS. 
A 
v. 
LEELA VA 1HY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. 
MAY 11, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
l 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 
-:' 
...( 
Benami transaction-Share in property of father claimed by daughter- c 
Contested by brothers on the ground that it was their personal property-
High Court held that transaction were benami in character-On appeal, 
held, role and motive on the part of the person who had advanced 
consideration for purchase of pnrierties important factor in determining 
nature of transaction-High Court not considered the question from that 
angle-Matter remitted to High Court for consideration of matter afresh. 
D 
r 
The properties in the suit belongs to one 'G'. He died leaving behind 3 
' 
sons-defendants and a daughter. Daughter-plaintiff filed suit for partition 
claiming I/4th share in property of 'G'. Two brothers died during pendency 
of the case. Plaintiff also died leaving behind respondents as her heirs and 
LRs. Defendants-appellants contested the claim on the ground that property E 
in question was personnel property. 
Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that although the properties were 
purchased with the moneyof'G', the same having been done for the benefit of 
his sons and/or by way of a family arrangement, were not benami in character. 
High Court set aside the order of Trial Court. 
F 
_, "( 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the High Court 
committed a manifest error insofar as it proceeded on the basis that 'G' having 
provided for the amount of consideration for purchasing the immovable 
properties in the names of his three sons, by itself was sufficient to arrive at G 
a conclusion that the transaction, in question, were benami in character. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting matter to High Court, the Court 
.,,... 
HELD : The principle on the basis of which determination of the question 
417 
H 
418 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S. C.R. 
A as to whether a transaction is a benami one or not depends upon a large 
..,-
number of factors. The role and/or the motive on the part of the person who 
had advanced the amount of consideration plays an important role in 
determination of the nature of transaction. The High Court unfortunately had 
not considered the question from the said angle. The High Court while 
B 
pronouncing the impugned judgment had also not considered thoroughly the 
effect and purport of the requisite ingredients for arriving at a decision as to 
whether the transaction in question is benami or not. 
[Para 11) [421-G-H; 422-A-B] 
J 
Thakur Bhim Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and Anr. v. Thakur Kan Singh, [1980] 
). 
" 
c 3 SCC 72 and Binapuri Paul v. Pratima Ghosh and Ors., (2007) 6 SCALE 
398, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7117 of2000. 
From the Final Judgment dated 26.02.1999 of the High Court of Kamataka, 
D 
at Bangalore in R.F .A. No. 220 of 1991. 
G.V. Chandrasekhar (for P.P. Singh) for the Appellants. 
T 
Sanjay Kr. Dubey (for A.S. Bhasme) for the Respondents. 
~ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
S.B. SINHA, J. I. Defendants in the suit are appellants before us. Smt. 
Leelavathi, predecessor in interest of the present respondents filed a suit for 
partition. The properties in the suit belonged to one G. Venkata Rao. He died 
on or about 18.10.!974 leaving behind tbree sons, V. Shankaranarayana Rao, 
V. Sathya Murthy and V. Surendranath and a daughter Smt. Leelavathi. 
F 
2. Wife ofShri G. Venkata Rao, Smt. Sharada Bai pre-deceased him. V. 
Shankaranarayana Rao died on or about 24.12.1995 i.e during the pendency 
1" '--
of the appeal. Mr. V. Sathya Murthy died on or about 10.10.1999 leaving 
behind a son Srinivasa. V. Surendranath was the defendant No. 3 (appellant). 
G 
Plaintiff Leelavathi also died during the pendency of the appeal leaving the 
respondents herein as her heirs and legal representatives. Leelavathi filed a 
suit on or about 24.3.1976 which was registered as O.S. No. 43 of 1976 for 
partition of the suit properties claiming I/4th share in the properties of the 
said G. Venkata Rao. 
...,, 
H 
3. Defendants/Appellants denied and disputed that G. Venkata Rao had 
purchased any property in their names alleging that schedule Item No. !(a) 
V. SHANKARANARAYANARAO(D)BY LRS. v. LEELAVAIBY (DEAD) BY LRS. (S.B.SINHA, J.] 4 J 9 
...,.. 
is the personal property of the third defendant, whereas item Nos. 1 (b) and A 
l(c) thereof belong to t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.