KRISHNAN NAIR S Vs. S JAYAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Has the appellant succeeded in establishing that Ext. B5 transaction is a 'benami transaction' If so, has he succeeded in 'proving the contrary' as required and insisted by S.3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibitions) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') These are the only serious questions that come up for consideration in the light of the arguments specifically advanced before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) The relevant and vital facts first. The appellant and the respondent are spouses. Their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent during the pendency of this appeal as per an order passed under S.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act in Mat. Appeal No. 207/2004 on 27/10/2009. Their marriage took place on 21/01/1986. They resided together for some period of time after such matrimony. There is a serious dispute about the date on which separate residence commenced. Admittedly, when separate residence commenced, whether it be in January 1987 as contended by the appellant or on 17/12/1986 as contended by the respondent in this proceedings or on 09/11/1986 as contended by the respondent in Ext. A4, it is not disputed that such separate residence started after she became pregnant and before the child was born on 05/03/1987. Subsequently, the spouses have not been able to settle their disputes and resume cohabitation. Such separate residence admittedly continues till this date. We, after laborious attempts, were finally able to induce the parties to arrive at a settlement and dissolve the marriage as per the order in Mat. Appeal No. 207/2004 referred above.

(3.) On 15/12/1986 as per the original of Ext. B5, 12.75 cents of land were purchased in the name of the respondent. Straightaway we note that the averments in the said document reveal clearly that the sale consideration was paid by her. Admittedly, there is nothing intrinsically available in the document to suggest that payment was made by any one other than the respondent herein.