Summary
The Supreme Court upheld a money decree for an admitted loan whose repayment was disputed. The borrower’s admission concerning the sale agreement supported the lender’s explanation that his bank deposit came from other available sale proceeds, rather than repayment. Considering the photocopy and a consequential formal pleading amendment was not erroneous on these facts. The benami objection failed because neither the suit nor the defence established a claim to property held for an undisclosed real owner.
Issues
- Whether the money decree was undermined by reliance on the admitted photocopy and the contention that the lender’s account of sale consideration involved a prohibited benami claim.
Held
- The defendant admitted the relevant document in cross-examination, and did not deny that its original was with the purchaser. A consequential formal amendment explaining the lender’s available funds did not invalidate the High Court’s assessment. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The loan suit sought no recovery from the purchaser and asserted no right as a benami owner. The amount of consideration was relevant to the repayment defence; it did not itself establish a transaction barred by the Benami Act. (¶¶ 17, 18, 21)
- The burden of establishing a benami transaction rests on the party asserting it and cannot be discharged by conjecture. The appellants did not establish that someone other than the purchaser was the real owner, and the property itself was not the subject of the recovery suit. (¶¶ 20, 21)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; High Court’s money decree left undisturbed.