VALLIAMMAL (D) BY LRS. versus SUBRAMANIAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 966 · Decided: 31-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
V ALLIAMMAL (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
SUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. 
AUGUST 31, 2004 
B 
[ASHOK BHAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.) 
Benami Transaction-Presumption of-Purchase of property--Benami 
purchase-Burden to prove benami purchase-Held: There is a presumption 
C in law that the person who purchases the property is the owner of the 
same-Burden lies on the person who pleads that the recorded owner is 
a benami-holder. 
D 
Benami Transaction-Purchase of property--Benami purchase-
Tests to determine-Plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that he was the 
owner of the suit property as it was purchased benami in his wife's name-
Trial court decreed the suit- .-:-irst Appellate Court confirmed the decree-
However, the High Court held that the plaintiff's .vife was not a benami-
holder Correctness of-Held: The source from where the purcl.ase money 
came and the motive for benami purchase are by far the most important 
E tests for determining whether a particular purchase is a benami purchase 
or not-In the circumstances of the case, plaintiff failed to give valid 
reasons for purchase of the property benami in his wife's name and that 
he had paid the purchase money-Hence, High Court's judgment upheld. 
F 
Benami Transaction-Essence of-Held: Intention the parties is the 
G 
essence of benami transaction-The money should have been provided by 
the party invoking the doctrine of qenami. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of benami-Invoking of 
The suit land belonged to the original plaintiff-appellant and his 
deceased brother which was sold in a court auction to satisfy a decree 
H passed against them in a money suit. The suit land was purchased from 
966 
• 
VILLIAMMAL v. SUBRAMANIAM 
967 
the auction-purchaser by the original plaintiff's wife for a certain A 
amount. Subsequently, she bequeathed the suit land to her daughters 
by a registered will. After her death, the original plaintiff filed a suit 
for declaration and permanent injunction against his daughters with 
the averments that long after the auction-sale he approached a third 
person who paid a certain sum to the auction-purchaser who, in turn, B 
sold the suit land to his wife. The original plaintiff pleaded that he got 
the sale deed executed in favour of his wife as a benami as he 
apprehended that some creditors of his and also those of his deceased 
brother might create problems in future if the sale deed were in his 
favour. The plaintiff, therefore, alleged that the sale transaction was C 
a benami transaction. 
The trial court decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court 
confirmed the decree. In second appeal, the High Court set aside the 
findings recorded by the courts below and held that the plaintiff- D 
appellant had failed to prove that he had purchased the property in 
the name of his wife as a benami. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. There is a presumption in law that the person who E 
purchases the property is the owner of the same. This presumption can 
be displaced by successfully pleading and proving that the document 
was taken benami in the name of another person for some reason, and 
the person whose name appears in the document is not the real owner, 
but only a benami. Heavy burden lies on the person who pleads that F 
the recorded owner is a benami-holder. (973-F-GJ 
Jaydayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazra, [1974) l.SCC 3, Krishnanand v. State 
of MP., (1977) 1 SCC 816, Thakur Bhim Singh v. Thakur Kan Singh, 
(1980) 3 SCC 72, His Highness Maharaja Pratap Singh v. Her Highness G 
Maharani Sarojini Devi, [1994) Supp. (1) SCC 734 and Heirs of 
Vraj/al J Ganatra v. Heirs of Parshottam Singh, [1998) 4 SCC 490, 
referred to. 
2. The source from where the purchase money came and H 
968 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A the motive why the property was purchased benami are by far 
the most important tests for determining whether the sale 
standing in the name of one person, is in reality for the benefit of 
another. [974-G-H; 975-A] 
B 
3. In law the title to the property vests in the person in whose 
favour the sale deed has been executed. Therefore, the original 
plaintiff's wife was the absolute owner of the property. By a registered 
will she bequeathed the suit land to her daughters defendants/ 
respondents. The presumption in favour of the original plaintiffs wife 
C could be displaced only if her husband was able to prove that there 
were circumstances which warranted the purchase of the property 
benami in the name of his wife. Th

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