KISTAPPA NAICKER Vs. ELUMALAI NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O. S. No. 291 of 1970, who succeeded before the trial court, but lost before the first appellate Court, are the appellants herein. One palani Ammal is the mother of the first appellant herein. The suit properties stand in the name of Palani Ammal, purchased by her under Ex. A-2 dated 3-91949 and Ex. A-3 dated 17-8-1965. The respondent purchased the suit properties from Palani Ammal under Ex. A-1 dated 22-9-1969. Alleging that the appellants unlawfully trespassed on 5-3-1970, cut and removed the crops raised by the respondent, the suit was instituted for declaration of the respondent's title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession with mesne profits.

(2.) THE case of the appellants was that though the suit properties were purchased in the name of the first appellant's mother, the consideration for the purchase of the properties came from the appellants' father viz. , Madurai naicker, and, therefore, the suit properties were the joint family properties, and palani Ammal had no title to the properties, and consequently the respondent did not derive any title from Palani Ammal. In short, the case of the appellants was that the purchases under Exts. A-2 and A-3 were benami in the name of palani Ammal for the benefit of the joint family. The learned District Munsif, who tried the suit, accepted this case of the appellants, and dismissed the suit instituted by the respondent. However, on appeal, the learned Principal subordinate Judge, Chingleput, reversed that conclusion and held that the allegation, of benami put forward by the appellants was not proved, and consequently, Palani Ammal was the owner of the properties and was competent to convey title thereto in favour of the respondent in the suit. With the result, he allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence the present second appeal by the defendants in the suit.

(3.) IT has been repeatedly held by this Court that when a husband purchased the property in the name of his wife by paying his own money from that alone no inference can be drawn that the wife was only a benamidar, and having regard to the nature of the relationship between the parties, and the normal tendency of the husband to benefit the wire either by payment of money or by purchase of property in her name, the allegation of benami can be established only by proving the motive for such benami purchase--vide Thangavi Ammal v. Gurunatha Goundan, (1963) 2 Mad LJ 151 and Ammaponnammal v. Shanmugham Pillai, In view of this legal position settled by this Court, prima facie, the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct.