JAYDAYAL PODDAR (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANOTHER versus MST. BIBI HAZRA AND ORS.

JAYDAYAL PODDAR (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANOTHER versus MST. BIBI HAZRA AND ORS.

The plaintiffs-appellants failed to prove with definite legal evidence that Mst. Hakimunnissa was merely a benamidar for Abdul Karim; rather, the evidence indicates she purchased the property from her own resources. The burden to prove benami was not discharged, and the apparent state of affairs (ownership by Mst. Hakimunnissa) must be accepted as real.

Parties
Appellant: Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased) through his L.Rs and another; Respondent: Mst. Bibi Hazra; Respondent: Abdul Karim; Respondent: Abdul Latif
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 October 1973
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Certificate From the Patna High Court's Appellate Judgment and Decree Dated 31st October, 1962 in First Appeal No. 619 of 1958
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Benami Transaction, Burden of Proof, Title and Possession, Mohammedan Law (succession)
Property Law Benami Transaction Burden of Proof Title and Possession Mohammedan Law (succession)

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased) through his L.Rs and another

Appellant

Mst. Bibi Hazra

Respondent

Abdul Karim

Respondent

Abdul Latif

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Certificate From the Patna High Court's Appellate Judgment and Decree Dated 31st October, 1962 in First Appeal No. 619 of 1958

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the house purchased in the name of Mst. Hakimunnissa was benami, i.e., whether she was the real owner or only a benamidar for Abdul Karim
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs-appellants have established title to the house in suit based on the alleged benami transaction

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs-appellants failed to prove with definite legal evidence that Mst. Hakimunnissa was merely a benamidar for Abdul Karim; rather, the evidence indicates she purchased the property from her own resources. The burden to prove benami was not discharged, and the apparent state of affairs (ownership by Mst. Hakimunnissa) must be accepted as real.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Decision of the High Court is affirmed, suit of the plaintiffs-appellants is dismissed as to the share of Bibi Hazra, with costs.