BHIM SINGH &.ANR. versus KAN SINGH

BHIM SINGH &.ANR. versus KAN SINGH

The transaction under which the patta was obtained was not a benami transaction. The house was acquired by the deceased brother, Bharat Singh, with his money and with the intention of constituting plaintiff No. 2 as the absolute owner. The declarations and conduct of Bharat Singh support this intention, and the onus of proof for a benami transaction was not discharged by the defendant.

Parties
Plaintiff No. 1 / Appellant in C.a. 626/71: Bhim Singh; Plaintiff No. 2 / Appellant in C.a. 626/71: Himmat Singh; Defendant / Appellant in C.a. 629/71: Kan Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 December 1979
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals (cross Appeals) Arising From Suit for Possession and Damages / Decision on Cross Appeals From Judgment and Order of the Rajasthan High Court (r.f.a. No. 31/60)
Outcome
Civil Appeal No. 626 of 1971 allowed with costs throughout. Civil Appeal No. 629 of 1971 dismissed without costs.
Legal Topics
Benami Transactions, Title Deeds, Succession and Inheritance, Burden of Proof, Admissions and Evidence
Property Law Civil Procedure Benami Transactions Title Deeds Succession and Inheritance Burden of Proof Admissions and Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhim Singh

Plaintiff No. 1 / Appellant in C.a. 626/71

Himmat Singh

Plaintiff No. 2 / Appellant in C.a. 626/71

Kan Singh

Defendant / Appellant in C.a. 629/71

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals (cross Appeals) Arising From Suit for Possession and Damages / Decision on Cross Appeals From Judgment and Order of the Rajasthan High Court (r.f.a. No. 31/60)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit house acquired by Bharat Singh was held benami in the names of plaintiffs or was intended to benefit plaintiff No. 2 as absolute owner.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant acquired any proprietary interest or right of survivorship in the suit house.

Ratio Decidendi

The transaction under which the patta was obtained was not a benami transaction. The house was acquired by the deceased brother, Bharat Singh, with his money and with the intention of constituting plaintiff No. 2 as the absolute owner. The declarations and conduct of Bharat Singh support this intention, and the onus of proof for a benami transaction was not discharged by the defendant.

Court Disposition

Civil Appeal No. 626 of 1971 allowed with costs throughout. Civil Appeal No. 629 of 1971 dismissed without costs.

Orders

  • Decree set aside. Defendant directed to deliver possession of the suit house to plaintiff No. 2.
  • Defendant to pay mesne profits to plaintiff No. 2 at Rs. 50 per month from 20 September 1956 till today and future mesne profits to be determined by trial court under Order 20 Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure.