The Supreme Court in the case of Smt. P. Leelavathi v. V. Shankarnarayana Rao held that the intention of the father to give financial assistance was for the purpose of welfare of his sons and not ‘benami’
Smt. P. Leelavathi instituted the suit against the original defendants (now deceased) for partition and recovery of one-fourth share of the plaintiff in the plaint scheduled properties. The original plaintiff and defendants are the children of Late G. Venkata Rao who died on 08.10.1974. The father of the original plaintiff was an Estate Agent purchasing properties in the name of his sons. It was in these joint family properties that the plaintiff had claimed a share on his refusal to give her a share.
The parties have exhausted the local remedies and have reached the Hon’ble Court in order to claim one-fourth share in the suit properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the purchase of the suit properties was benami transaction as the sale consideration was paid by their father. Hence, the issue which is before the Court is whether because of some financial assistance which has been given by the father to the sons to purchase properties, can the transactions be termed as ‘benami’?
The Bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice M. R. Shah relied upon the Hon’ble Court’s decisions laying principles to establish the nature of transactions which can be categorized as ‘benami’ to adjudicate the present case. The Hon’ble Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the purchase of the suit properties was benami in nature. Further, such financial assistance was also given to the plaintiff and her husband to purchase the residential house. The intention of Late G. Venkata Rao to give the financial assistance to purchase the properties in the names of defendants was looked through and held to be not purchased for himself and hence not benami in nature.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
