Summary
A father’s financial assistance toward properties purchased in his sons’ names did not by itself prove benami ownership or entitle the daughter to partition them as his estate. The claimant bore the burden of establishing the alleged beneficial intention through definite evidence and surrounding circumstances. The father had also assisted the daughter and her family, and the evidence supported welfare assistance to the sons rather than acquisition for himself or a joint family. The partition claim to those properties failed.
Issues
- Whether financial assistance alone established that the sons’ purchases were benami.
- What evidence and intention determined the character of the transactions.
- Whether the daughter proved a right to a quarter share in those properties.
Held
- The burden of proving benami ownership rests on the person asserting it. Intention governs, assessed through source of funds, possession, motive, relationship, custody of title deeds and later conduct; conjecture cannot replace definite evidence. (¶ 9.1–9.2)
- Source of money is relevant but not conclusive. The claimant failed to establish that the father intended to acquire these properties for himself or the family rather than assist the sons who purchased under separate deeds. (¶ 10)
- The father’s support of the daughter and her husband, assistance for their house and allocation of shares supported the inference that similar assistance to the sons was for their welfare. No other sufficient indicia of benami ownership were established. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs. Rejection of the daughter’s claimed quarter share in the three properties purchased in the sons’ names affirmed on the failure to prove benami ownership.