Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Regular First Appeal No. 72 of 1961

Judges

Dua
Mahajan, JJ.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Dua and Mahajan, JJ.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns a dispute over the sale of a house and whether that sale in favour of Balram Dass was benami. The matter was initially heard by D.K. Mahajan and P.C. Pandit, JJ., who on 11 April 1963 framed an additional issue:

“Whether the sale of the house in favour of Balram Dass was benami?”

The case was remanded to the trial Court to give the parties full opportunity to lead evidence on that issue. The Senior Subordinate Judge returned a report dated 14 August 1963 finding that Balram Dass was the real owner and that the sale in his favour was not benami.

Key factual events as set out in the opinion:

On 28 July 1959 Balram Dass (described as the son of the appellant) entered into an agreement of sale of the house in question in favour of Karam Chand for Rs. 6,000; Rs. 1,000 was paid on that date with the balance payable at registration.
The house was evacuee property; sale required Deputy Commissioner’s approval, which the vendor undertook to obtain. The sale-deed was executed on 31 August 1959 but could not be presented for registration on that day; notices were sent to Balram Dass who did not comply.
Karam Chand instituted suit on 3 February (year not specified in excerpt) against Balram Dass. Mangat Rai (father of Balram Dass) and Devki Nandan (a minor son of Balram Dass) applied to be made parties alleging ownership and were impleaded.
Balram Dass resisted the suit on grounds that the agreement was obtained by undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation, and that the house belonged to his father (Mangat Rai) and that he was incompetent to sell it.
The trial Court held that the sale of the house in favour of Balram Dass by the Rehabilitation Department was not benami and found him entitled to sell the house to the plaintiff; on appeal the Court called for a report on the benami question.
The lower Court's report found payments related to the transaction: Rs. 130 paid at allotment (disbelieved to have been paid by Mangat Rai) and Rs. 1,924 adjusted towards the price from a claim in the name of Mangat Rai, which the lower Court treated as likely representing Balram Dass's one-fourth share in a quantum of Rs. 8,440 available to the claimant.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the sale of the house in favour of Balram Dass was benami.
Whether specific performance (as granted by the Court below) was properly granted, insofar as the appellant challenged that remedy.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as recorded)

The appellant (father) contended that he had paid the entire purchase price: specifically that Rs. 130 was paid by him at allotment and that Rs. 1,924 had been adjusted out of his claim, so that the whole purchase price was effectively paid by him.
On this basis, and relying on legal authority, counsel submitted the sale in favour of Balram Dass must be held to be benami and that Balram Dass was merely an ostensible owner while the appellant was the true beneficial owner.
Counsel relied upon precedent and authoritative statements that the source of the purchase money is the predominant factor in determining whether a transaction is benami.
The appellant also challenged the grant of specific performance by the Court below (arguing presumably that the grant was improper, though details of the specific grounds for this challenge are not elaborated in the opinion beyond its mention).

Respondent / Trial Court Position and Evidence (as recorded)

The trial Court and the remand report concluded Balram Dass was the real owner and that the sale was not benami.
The lower Court found that Rs. 1,924 adjusted towards the purchase price corresponded to one-fourth of the amount admissible to the claimant (Rs. 8,440) and therefore supported the conclusion that this sum represented Balram Dass's share in compensation rather than payment by the father as purchase money.
Evidence before the Court included testimony that the family had joint Hindu family property, prior partition proceedings affecting property distribution, and documentary recital (Exhibit D.1 para. 6-G) reflecting amounts admissible to the claimant.
The appellant's own testimony (as D.W.6) was found unimpressive and inconsistent on key points (e.g., memory failures about declarations of property, permissions, production of receipts, rental arrangements), and there were indicators of collusion between father and son.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
L. Kanshi Ram v. R.S.L. Shankar Das, A.I.R. 1928 Lah. 397	When purchase of real estate by a Hindu is made in the name of his son, there is a presumption of benami purchase; burden lies on the party in whose name it was purchased to prove beneficial ownership; source of acquisition is the main criterion.	Relied on by appellant to argue benami nature. The Court acknowledged the principle but held that on the present material the remand report and trial Court's conclusions could not be faulted.
Smt. Parbati Gangaram Aggarwal v. Firm Jai Ram Dass Bhagat Ram, A.I.R. 1962 Punj. 186	Emphasises the importance of the source from which the purchase money is derived when deciding benami questions.	Appellant cited the case; the Court recorded the principle but found that the surrounding facts did not support overturning the lower Court's finding that the sale was not benami.
Kedar Nath Motani v. Prahlad Rai, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 213	Observes that benami transactions are common and that the cardinal point to be proved is the source of the money used for acquisition.	Appellant relied on the authority; the Court accepted the importance of source as a criterion but reiterated that it is not conclusive and must be weighed with other circumstances; applied that approach to uphold the remand report.
K. Venkoba Rao (revised by R.I. Anand), The Law of Benami Transactions (1961 ed.), p.13	Sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors for inferring benami intent (e.g., source of purchase money, possession, relation of parties, motive, custody of title deed, conduct before/after transaction), while noting each factor alone is not conclusive.	Appellant cited these enumerated factors. The Court acknowledged the checklist and emphasised that while source is the most important factor, no single circumstance is conclusive; applied the multi-factor approach to the facts and affirmed the lower Court's conclusion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by focusing first on the benami issue referred back by the earlier Bench. It reviewed the remand report and the material placed before the trial Court and remand Court, and then analysed the credibility of the evidence and the legal principles invoked.

Key points in the Court's analysis:

Evaluation of documentary and evidentiary facts: The lower Court found that Rs. 130 had been paid at allotment and that Rs. 1,924 had been adjusted towards the purchase price from a claim standing in Mangat Rai's name. The remand Court disbelieved the assertion that the Rs. 130 had been paid by Mangat Rai.
Family-property context: Evidence established that Mangat Rai and his sons constituted a joint Hindu family, and previous proceedings and a compromise decree had divided property into four shares (one to the father and three to the sons). The remand Court inferred that Rs. 1,924 was about one-fourth of Rs. 8,440 and could represent Balram Dass's share in compensation.
Credibility of the appellant's testimony: The appellant's oral evidence (as D.W.6) was described as "most unimpressive": he admitted facts inconsistent with his claim, repeatedly failed to recall or produce documentary evidence (water tax receipts, rent deed, declaration of immovable property), and could not say whether he obtained requisite permissions for purchase. These failures undermined his contention that he alone supplied the purchase money.
Indicators of collusion and possession: The Court found signs of collusion between father and son, and observed circumstances suggesting Balram Dass had possession up to the time of a compromise decree in which he relinquished possession in favour of his father — a fact the Court treated as suggestive that possession had been with the son earlier.
Legal principle on source of purchase money: While accepting the authorities emphasising the source of purchase money as an important (indeed predominant) factor in deciding benami questions, the Court reiterated the settled point that this factor is not conclusive. The Court underlined that the question must be decided on the peculiar facts and surrounding circumstances of each case.
Application to this case: Balancing the evidence, the Court found no reason to fault the remand report's conclusion that the sale was not benami. The trial and remand Courts' factual findings and credibility assessments were accepted as reliable; accordingly, there was no justification for reversal on appeal.
On the appellant's separate contention attacking the grant of specific performance, the Court observed that the appellant had not been shown to be the owner of the property and therefore had no locus standi to challenge the lower Court's decision on that point.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is dismissed.

Direct consequences and implications (as stated in the opinion):

The remand report and the trial Court's conclusion that the sale in favour of Balram Dass was not benami are upheld.
The appellant's challenge to the grant of specific performance was rejected on the ground that he was not shown to be the owner and thus lacked locus standi to object.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The opinion does not state that it is laying down any new legal precedent; it applies existing authorities and established principles (particularly the primacy of the source of purchase money as an important, but not conclusive, criterion) to the facts of the case and affirms the factual findings of the Courts below.

Show full summary ...

Mehta Mangal Rai v. Karam Chand And Others

Dua and Mahajan, JJ.:— This appeal was initially heard by D.K Mahajan and P.C Pandit JJ., and by their order dated 11th April, 1963, they framed an additional issue and sent the case back to the trial Court for submitting a report after giving the parties full opportunity to lead evidence on the new issue. The issue, framed by them is in the following terms:—

“Whether the sale of the house in favour of Balram Dass was benami?

2. The report of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge dated 14th August, 1963 is to the effect that Balram Dass was the real owner of the house in dispute and the sale in his favour was not benami. It is conceded before us that if the report is upheld, then the appeal must fail and if we hold that the sale in favour of Balram Dass was benami, then further questions raised in the controversy would have to be determined, I would, therefore address myself, to start with, to the question of the benami nature of the sale of the house in dispute in favour of Balram Dass.

3. Before dealing with this question, I may in a nutshell state the broad and salient features of the controversy out of which this appeal has arisen. On 28th July, 1959, Balram Dass son of the appellant entered into an agreement of sale regarding the house in question in favuor of Karam Chand for Rs. 6,000. A sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid in cash on that very date, the balance to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed which was agreed to be filed within one month. The house being an evacuee property, its sale was subject to the approval of the Deputy Commissioner, with the result that the vendor had taken the responsibility of obtaining the requisite sanction. In case of breach by the vendor in the performance of his contract, he was to refund the earnest money and also pay in addition Rs. 1,000 by way of damages. In the event of breach by the vendee, this earnest money was to be forfeited. On 31st August, 1959, the sale-deed was executed and duly signed by the parties as well as the attesting witnesses. The time of registration having expired, the document could not be presented for registration on that day. Karam Chand accordingly presented the sale-deed before the Sub-Registrar for registration after its execution and registration and Balram Dass was given a notice by the Sub Registrar to appear before him which he failed to do. Karam Chand also sent a notice to Balram Dass but to no effect. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was consequently instituted on 3rd February by Karam Chand against Balram Dass. Mangat Rai, father of Balram Dass and Devki Nandan, minor son of Balram Dass, applied for being made parties to the suit on the allegation that they were the owners in possession of the house in question; they were accordingly impleaded by the Court. The suit was resisted by the defendant Balram Dass pleading that the agreement of sale had been obtained from him by undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation and the same was therefore, void and unenforceable. The house, according to his plea, belonged to his father and he himself was incompetent to sell it. It is unnecessary to refer to the other details: ??? it to say that the trial Court held the sale of the house in favour of Balram Dass by the Rehabilitation Department not to be benamt, with the result that he was found to possess the right to sell the house to the plaintiff. It is in these circumstances that on appeal this Court called for a report on the fresh isssue relating to the benami nature of the sale in favour of Balram Dass.

4. The Court below has held that a sum of Rs. 130/- was paid at the time of the allotment of the house before execution of the sal deed and a sum of Rs. 1,924/- was adjusted towards the price of the house from the claim standing in the name of Mangat Rai, father of Balram Dass. The sum of Rs. 130/- was also asserted by Mangat Rai to have been paid by him, but this payment of Rs. 130/- by Mangat Rai has been disbelieved by the Court below. The lower Court after considering the entire evidence based its final conclusion against the benami nature of the sale in favour of Balram Dass in the following words:—

“In the present case, the evidence on record shows that Mangat Rai and his sons constituted a joint Hindu family. Mangat Kai in his statement dated 31st July, 1963 admitted that he owned houses in village Chang that the said houses were in his name, but that was joint Hradu family property. It is also admitted that earlier Balram Dasi defendant filed a suit for partition of agricultural land standing in the name of Mangat Rai in the Court of learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar, and in that suit, a compromise decree was passed by which the property was divided in four shares; one share was given to Mangat Rai and the remaining three to his three sons. In presence of this evidence, it would be reasonable to presume that this cl dm was also joint Hindu family property and a sum of Rs. 1,924/- which was adjusted towards the price os the house in dispute was the share of Balram Dass in this compensation. It would be proper here to note that according to the rectical in para. 6-G of Exhibit D.1, amount admissible to the claimant was only Rs. 8,440/-. Rs. 1,924/- comes about one-fourth of the entire amount admissible to the claimant. This fact also supports the contention of the plaintiff that a sum of Rs. 1,924/- which was adjusted towards the price of the house in suit was Balram Dass's share in the compensation.”

5. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant has very vehemently contended that a sum of Rs. 130/- was also paid by his client and since Rs. 1924/- have also been adjusted out of his claim, the whole of the purchase price of the house has accordingly been paid by his client. The source of the purchase price being according to the law the predominant and most important factor in considering the benami nature of a transaction, the sale of the house in question in favour of Balram Dass must be held to be benami of which the true and beneficial owner is the appellant, Balram Dass being merely an ostensible owner. He has in support of his contention sought assistance from L. Kanshi Ram v. R.S.L Shankar Das . A.I.R 1928 Lah. 397., wherein it is laid down that when a purchase of real estate is made by a Hindu in the name of one of his sons the presumption is in favour of its being a benami purchase and the burden of proof lies on the party in whose name it was purchased to prove that he was solely entitled to the legal and beneficial interest in the permanent estate and that the source from which the acquisition is made is the main criterion for deciding whether the person in whose name a benami purchase is made is or is not the real owner. Reference has also been made to Smt. Parbati Gangaram Aggarwal v. Firm Jai Ram Dass Bhagat Ram . A.I.R 1962 Punj. 186., in which also the importance of the source from which the purchase money comes has been emphasised. Reliance has next been placed on Kedar Nath Motani v. Prahlad Rai . A.I.R 1960 S.C 213., in which at p. 219 it has been observed that benami transactions are common in India and have always been recognised and that in establishing the benami nature of the transaction, the cardinal point to be proved is the source of money. The counsel has in addition referred us to p. 13 of the Daw of Benami Transactions, by K. Venkoba Rao revised by R.I Anand, (1961 edition), where it is laid down that the essential characteristic of a benami transaction is that it is not intended to be operative and that the benamidar is merely a name lender in the transaction; in other words, his name is simply an alias or that of the person beneficially interested. It is also stated there that the first thing, therefore, which has to be done is to find out the real intention of the parties for which purpose, one must have regard to the following facts:—

(i) the source from which the purchase money was derived;

(ii) the possession of the property, i.e

(a) The party in possession, and the nature and character of his possession;

(b) whether possession was taken after the alleged gift or purchase—if not taken, why not;

(iii) the position of the parties and their relation to one another;

(iv) the circumstances, pecuniary or otherwise of the alleged transferor;

(v) his motive in making the alleged transfer;

(vi) the custody and production of the title deed, and

(vii) the previous and subsequent conduct of the parties.

It is however, emphasised there that each of these circumstances taken by itself is of no peculiar value and affords no conclusive proof of the intention to transfer the ownership from one person to the other. The source of purchase money has, however, always been regarded as the most important criterion, though it in no sense affords conclusive proof of the matter.

6. After hearing the counsel, in my opinion, on the material on the present record, it is difficult to find fault with the conclusions of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge in his remand report. The statement of the appellant as D.W 6 is most unimpressive and brings out the following salient features. He has admitted that Balram Dass has filed a suit for partition against him in the Court of the, Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar, and the suit related to agricultural land. The property in Pakistan had also been divided in four shares, three having been given to his three sons and one to himself. The house owned by him in village Chang is admitted to be joint Hindu family property, Balram Dass having a share in it. When asked as to whether he had shown the house in question to be his own property, his memory, conveniently failed him. Similar was the position when he was asked if as Government servant he had included this house in the declaration of immovable properties owned by him. He could not even say if he had filed any such declaration. He also failed to remember if he had obtained permission from the Government for purchasing this house. He has stated that he used to pay water tax in respect of this house and the receipts for the same were with him but those receipts have not been produced. He was unable to remember even the fact whether he had ever rented the house in suit to anybody and indeed he also conceded that he had no such rent deed in his possession. Balram Dass has of course supported his father in the witness box but the version given by him as to the circumstances in which he executed the sale deed hardly inspires confidence and appears to us to be so fantastic that we find it difficult to believe. Collusion between the father and the son is clearly apparent from their statements in Court. Now, however, important the factor of the source of the purchase money, it is indisputable that this circumstance is by no means conclusive. The question has necessarily to be considered in each case on its own peculiar facts and surrounding circumstances, a general pattern of which has been reproduced above. Merely because father has supplied money for the purchase of a house by the son it does not by itself conclusively establish the fact of the son being a benamidar without considering the attending circumstances. In the case in hand it is admitted by the appellant that he had three wives: Balram Dass is the eldest son from his first wife who is stated to have since died. Balram Das was about 30 years old in 1960 and is married. Though according to the appellant Balram Dass is doing zamindara with his father nevertheless he admittedly sought partition of agricultural land. Even in the compromise decree regarding the house in dispute between, the father and the son which is apparently a collusive decree Balram Dass is shown to have relinquished possession in favour of his father which clearly suggests that possession had been with the son till then. In the back ground of all these circumstances we find it exceedingly difficult to hold that the conclusion of the Court below in the remand report is by any means erroneous justifying reversal on appeal; indeed on the existing record we are in full agreement with the conclusion at which the Court below has arrived.

7. The other contention on behalf of the appellant that specific performance should not have been granted by the Court below is sufficiently met by the observation that the appellant having not been shown to be the owner of the property has no locus standi to object to the decision of the lower Court on this point.

8. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with Costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Mehta Mangal Rai v. Karam Chand And Others

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Dua and Mahajan, JJ.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as recorded)

Respondent / Trial Court Position and Evidence (as recorded)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Mehta Mangal Rai v. Karam Chand And Others

Comments