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

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 417

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

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

Judgment text

~ V. SHANKARANARAYANA RAO (D) BY LRS. & ORS. v. LEELAVA1HY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. MAY 11, 2007 [S. B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ. ] l Transfer ofProperty Act, 1882: :' ... ( Benami transaction-Share in property offather claimed by daughter- 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. The properties in the suit belongs to one 'G'. He died leaving behind 3 r 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 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. _, "( 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 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 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 ofthe nature of transaction. The High Court unfortunately had not considered the question from the said angle. The High Court while 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. andAnr. v. Thakur Kan Singh, [1980] " 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 ofthe High Court ofKamataka, 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 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. 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). 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. ... ,, 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)BYLRS. v. LEELAVAIBY (DEAD)BY LRS. (S. B. SINHA, J. ] 4J9 ... ,.. is the personal property of the third defendant, whereas item Nos. 1 (b) and l(c) thereof belong to the second defendant. It was contended that the properties standing in their names are exclusively owned by them and even three fixed deposits were their own personal properties. It was averred that a joint saving bank account in the Syndicate Bank, Bangalore wa~ being operated in the joint names of the deceased Venkata Rao and the defendant No. 2 and only a small amount had been lying therein. As regards item No. (3), it was alleged that no debt was due or payable to the deceased.

It was furthermore contended that he had left no jewellery. In regard to the household ~ articles which were described in items 10, 12, 19, 20, 21and22, of the plaint - different conclusions have been arrived at by the courts below. We are sure, High Court would consider the same in the light of its findings on the principal issue. 13. For the reasons aforementioned, the. impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. In the facts and circumstances of this case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. ~ ,.. D. G. Appeal allowed. y