The Court said that even if it is proved that husband paid the consideration money, it has to be further proved that husband really intended to enjoy the full benefit of the title in him alone.
A transaction cannot be labelled a benami transaction merely because the husband bought the property in the name of the wife, the Calcutta High Court recently ruled [Sekhar Kumar Roy vs Lila Roy].
A division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee said that even if it is proved that husband paid the consideration money, it has to be further proved that husband really intended to enjoy the full benefit of the title in him alone.
“In the Indian society, if a husband supplies the consideration money for acquiring property in the name of his wife, such fact does not necessarily imply benami transaction. Source of money is, no doubt, an important factor but not a decisive one,” the bench emphasised in its order passed on June 7.
The intention of the supplier of the consideration money is the vital fact and the same has to be proved by the party who asserts that the transaction was a benami one, the Court said.
“Source of money is, no doubt, an important factor but not a decisive one. The intention of the supplier of the consideration money is the vital fact to be proved by the party who asserts benami,” the Court stated.
The burden of showing that a transfer is a benami one, always lies on the person who asserts it, the bench underlined.
The bench was seized of an appeal filed by one Sekhar Kumar Roy (plaintiff), who sought partition of a two-storey house, which was constructed by his father Sailendra.
Sailendra had purchased the land on which the house stands, in the name of his wife Lila.
After her husband’s death in 1999, the wife (Lila), son (Sekhar) and daughter (Sumita) all got 1/3 shares in the property.
Sekhar lived in the house till 2001 but later moved out and then sought to partition the property. However, the mother and daughter (Lila and Sumita) were not ready to accept this.
Things became worse for the family after the mother gave up her share as a gifted property to her daughter.
Sekhar then moved the Court alleging that this was a benami property.
The plaintiff alleged that his father had purchased this benami property which was given to his mother Lila.
However, the bench noted that Sekhar could not bring any evidence even to show what was amount of consideration money was and how the consideration money was paid and how the suit property was purchased.
“He could not produce any document relating to the suit property,” the bench noted while dismissing the claim.
