SMT. REBTI DEVI versus RAM DUTT AND ANR. ETC.

SMT. REBTI DEVI versus RAM DUTT AND ANR. ETC.

Where a benami plea was raised before 19.5.1988 in pending proceedings, it is not barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The burden of proof for benami lies on the party making the plea, and once both sides have adduced evidence, the factual finding cannot be interfered with in appeal. Purchases in wife's name attract statutory presumption under Section 3(2), and the exceptions provided by Sections 3(2) and 4(3) remain valid even after the Act's commencement.

Parties
Appellant: Smt. Rebti Devi; Respondents: Ram Dutt Gupta and Surendra Nath Gupta
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 November 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 6486 of 1983; Special Leave Petition No. 17883/1997 / Final Disposal Supreme Court of India
Outcome
Appeal and Special Leave Petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Benami Transactions, Burden of Proof, Statutory Interpretation, Family Succession
Property Law Family Law Civil Procedure Benami Transactions Burden of Proof Statutory Interpretation Family 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Rebti Devi

Appellant

Ram Dutt Gupta and Surendra Nath Gupta

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 6486 of 1983; Special Leave Petition No. 17883/1997 / Final Disposal Supreme Court of India

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the property purchased in the name of the wife was benami; applicability and interpretation of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, particularly Sections 3 and 4; whether the defence of benami is open after the 1988 Act; whether the burden of proof requirement was discharged by the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Where a benami plea was raised before 19.5.1988 in pending proceedings, it is not barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The burden of proof for benami lies on the party making the plea, and once both sides have adduced evidence, the factual finding cannot be interfered with in appeal. Purchases in wife's name attract statutory presumption under Section 3(2), and the exceptions provided by Sections 3(2) and 4(3) remain valid even after the Act's commencement.

Court Disposition

Appeal and Special Leave Petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 6486 of 1983 dismissed.
  • Special Leave Petition No. 17883/1997 dismissed.