Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute between a stepfather (appellant/defendant) and his stepdaughter (respondent/plaintiff). The defendant married the plaintiff's mother in 1965 when the plaintiff was about 3-4 years old. The defendant claimed that he purchased two properties in the plaintiff's name with his own money, including the suit property in 1992. He alleged that the plaintiff executed a memorandum of understanding on 10 November 1995 acknowledging his exclusive right to the property and later a power of attorney in his favor. The plaintiff, after returning from Saudi Arabia, filed a suit for possession and injunction, claiming ownership based on the registered sale deed in her name. The trial court decreed in her favor, ordering the defendant to hand over possession and restraining him from interfering. The District Court confirmed this decree. In the second appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the defendant failed to prove the benami transaction. The court emphasized that the registered sale deed in the plaintiff's name is prima facie evidence of title, and the defendant's claim of being the real owner was not supported by credible evidence. The memorandum of understanding and power of attorney did not transfer ownership, and the defendant's possession was permissive. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Benami Transactions - Burden of Proof - The defendant claimed the suit property was purchased benami in the plaintiff's name, but failed to prove that the consideration was paid by him or that he was the real owner. The court held that the burden of proving a benami transaction lies on the person asserting it, and mere possession or payment of taxes is insufficient to rebut the presumption of title from the registered sale deed. (Paras 4-6) B) Property Law - Ownership - Title Deed - The plaintiff's name appeared in the registered sale deed as the purchaser, and the court held that the title vests in the person named in the deed. The defendant's claim of ownership based on a memorandum of understanding and power of attorney was rejected as these documents did not transfer title. (Paras 4-6) C) Evidence - Memorandum of Understanding - The memorandum of understanding executed by the plaintiff acknowledging the defendant's payment of consideration was held to be a unilateral document not binding on the plaintiff, and it did not create any right in favor of the defendant. The court noted that the document was executed under circumstances of the plaintiff's proposed marriage and did not reflect a genuine transfer of ownership. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendant (stepfather) can claim ownership of the suit property based on a benami transaction and whether the memorandum of understanding and power of attorney executed by the plaintiff (stepdaughter) establish the defendant's ownership.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the District Court confirming the trial court's decree for possession and injunction in favor of the plaintiff is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Benami transaction
- burden of proof
- ownership based on title deed
- possession follows title
- memorandum of understanding not a transfer of ownership
- power of attorney does not confer title
