Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Calcutta High Court recently ruled that if a husband supplies the consideration money to purchase property in his wife's name, it would not constitute a benami transaction.

“It is well-settled law that the burden of showing that a transfer is a benami transaction always lies on the person who asserts it. In Indian society, if a husband supplies the consideration money for acquiring property in the name of his wife, such a fact does not necessarily imply a benami transaction,” the court added.

A division bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarthi Chatterjee was hearing an appeal in which one Sekhar Kr Roy (appellant) claimed that his father, Sailendra Kumar Roy (since deceased), had purchased the suit property in 1969 in 'beam' of his wife, Smt. Lila Roy through a registered sale deed.

The appellant's father passed away, leaving behind the appellant (his son), his wife Lila, and his daughter Sumita (the respondents). The appellant had lived in the suit property until 2011, after which he moved out. He then proposed to his mother and sister for partition of the suit property, to which the respondents refused, which resulted in the present litigation.

According to the respondents, the appellant's mother had purchased the suit property from her stridhan, becoming the absolute owner of the suit property, which was legally transformed in her name.

The counsel representing the appellant before the division bench argued that no particulars of the appellant's mother’s claim of ‘stridhan’ properties had been disclosed. She also did not disclose wherefrom she acquired the ‘stridhan’ properties or the value of her ‘stridhan’ properties, the counsel argued. 

Further, he stated that the respondents had failed to prove that the suit property was purchased from the appellant's mother's ‘stridhan’.

The burden lies upon the appellant's mother to prove her source wherefrom she had collected consideration money and expenses for the construction of the building since it is demonstrable from the evidence that she had no independent income, he added.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the suit property was purchased in 1970 and the appellant's father died in 1999. The appellant's mother gifted the suit property in favour of the appellant's sister in 2015 by way of a registered deed of gift and thereafter appellant's mother died in 2019.

Further, the counsel submitted that the appellant's mother had paid taxes to the corporation and the appellant himself had admitted that he did not look after his mother.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to prove that his father had the motive to create benami in the name of his mother and the appellant did not bring any evidence to prove that appellant's father had sufficient money to finance the appellant's mother for purchasing the suit property, thus, the court below rightly refused to decree the suit, contended the counsel for the respondent. 

The main question before the present division bench was whether the transaction i.e. the purchase of suit property under a registered deed of sale dated January 20, 1970, by the appellant's mother, was a benami transaction.

The court relied on the case of Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased) through Lrs. vs. Mst. Bibi Hazra AIR 1974 SC wherein the top court had given some circumstances for benami transactions for gathering the relevant indicia.

The court noted, “Even if it is proved that the appellant's deceased father paid the consideration money, the appellant must further prove that his father really intended to enjoy the full benefit of the title in him alone.”

“The appellant could not produce any document relating to the suit property. The title deed and all documents relating to the suit property were all along in the custody of the appellant's mother and she all paid municipal tax and got the suit property mutated in her name. Further, the appellant also could not bring any evidence on record to lead any prudent man to infer that his father had the motive to create benami in the name of his mother or appellant's father intended to enjoy the full benefit of the title in him alone,” the court said.

Hence, the court held that there was no error in the judgment of the lower court.

Case Title: Sekhar Kr Roy v Lila Roy & Anr