THERESU VAS Vs. ALLAN J VEIGAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendant No. 3 before the trial Court and the said appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R. A. No. 85/1989 by the learned Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, (Lower Appellate Court) reversing the judgment and decree dated 12-4-1979 passed in O. S. No. 12/1973 by the trial Court.

(2.) The facts in brief are to the effect that one Isabella Veigas had two sons and one daughter viz. William Veigas, Lawrence Veigas and Juliet Mathias. The said Isabella settled the suit schedule properties in favour of her son Lawrence Veigas and wife of the said Lawrence Veigas viz. Mrs. Mildred Veigas in equal moiety keeping life interest as per the registered settlement deed and she also made provision for her daughter Mrs. Juliet Mathias by paying suitable dowry and bequeathing some land to her son. Lawrence Veigas, who was the father of the plaintiff in the suit, settled his share of the property which he got from his mother in favour of William Veigas. Later on, the marriage relationship between Lawrence Veigas and his wife Mildred got strained and therefore, she filed a suit against her husband i.e. Lawrence Veigas and the said suit ultimately led to a compromise and in the final decree proceedings, the share of Mildred Veigas was purchased by defendant No. 1-William Veigas. That is how the entire suit schedule property came to the hands of William Veigas. The plaintiff before the Court below, being one of the four children of Lawrence Veigas, brought the suit before the Trial Court and prayed for declaration and possession in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property on the ground that the settlement deed executed by Lawrence Veigas in favour of the defendant No. 1-William Veigas was a benami transaction and the property which was settled in the name of the defendant No. 1-William Veigas was to be held by the defendant No. 3 as benamidar on behalf of the true owner i.e., Lawrence Veigas and the reason for Lawrence Veigas to settle the property in favour of the defendant No. 1 was on account of the insolvency petition No. 149/1944 being filed by the said Lawrence Veigas in the High Court of Bombay and therefore, in order to free himself from the pressures of the creditors, Lawrence Veigas has to resort to this benami transaction and as such what was held by defendant No. 1-William Veigas was actually the property owned by Lawrence Veigas and defendant No. 3 was only a benamidhar was the contention taken by the plaintiff before the Court below. It was also contended that, subsequent to the compromise decree, the settlement deed executed by defendant No. 1-William Veigas in favour of his sister Juliet Mathias also got tainted by the earlier benami transaction and as such both these transactions are not binding on the plaintiffs and he thus prayed for the abovesaid reliefs in the suit.

(3.) On the other hand, the stand of the defendants before the Court below was that Lawrence Veigas, father of the plaintiff had settled his share in the property in favour of his brother William Veigas under a registered settlement deed dated 5-4-1944 and since then the said defendant No. 1-William Veigas became the absolute owner of the half share of the suit property. As regards the other half share is concerned, in view of the suit filed by the wife of Lawrence Veigas leading to a compromise and a final decree being passed on 9-12-1947 under which it was agreed that the defendant No.1 i.e,. William Veigas shall pay Rs.13,670/- to the above said Mildred Veigas in full and final settlement of, her half share in the property, accordingly, the said amount was paid by the defendant No. 1 William Veigas and thereafterwards, the defendant No. 1 having become the owner of the entire suit schedule property, settled the same in favour of his sister i.e. the defendant No. 2 by settlement deed-4-7-1963 by keeping life interest for himself and later on even that was also transferred to the defendant No. 2 through registered deed dated 25-2-1972 and thus defendant No. 2 became the absolute owner in respect of the suit properties and as far as the benami nature of the transaction is concerned the defendants before the trial Court disputed the said stand of the plaintiff and it was also contended that the defendants were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ever since the settlement that took place in the year 1944 find therefore, the suit of the plaintiff did not. merit any consideration and it was also barred by time