Case Note & Summary
The appellant-defendant Mahadev filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging the concurrent judgments of the trial court and first appellate court decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff Vishalakshi. The suit was for declaration of title and possession of suit property bearing No.195/2 measuring 7 acres at Bhalki. The plaintiff claimed that her father Mahalingaiah purchased the property in her name with his own earnings, and she was the owner in possession. The defendant, who was the plaintiff's husband, contended that the property was purchased benami in the plaintiff's name by his father (defendant's father) and that he was in possession. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff proved her title through the registered sale deed and that the defendant failed to prove the benami transaction. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. In the second appeal, the High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the courts below erred in decreeing the suit. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the purchase money was provided by his father. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court in a second appeal can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be re-appreciated unless perverse. (Paras 1-2) B) Benami Transaction - Burden of Proof - The person alleging a benami transaction must prove that the purchase money was provided by him and that the property was held for his benefit. Mere relationship or love and affection is insufficient. (Paras 3-5) C) Property Law - Title and Possession - Suit for Declaration and Possession - Plaintiff who claims title through a registered sale deed and proves possession is entitled to decree unless defendant proves better title. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of CPC?
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 19.01.2013 passed in R.A. No.83/2012 by the Fast Track Court-II at Bidar, Camp at Bhalki, and the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2012 passed in O.S. No.32/2008 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhalki, are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Benami transaction
- burden of proof
- Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
