GANGADEVI MADANSINGH SHABMA Vs. SHIVNABAYAN JAGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Jaora, dismissing her suit. The plaintiff, who is Gangadevi describing hereself as the widow of one Madansingh (and who has to be distinguished from Gangabai defendant No. 2 the transferee from her husband defendant No. 1 of the house that is the subject-matter of the suit), contends that this house, purchased on 12-7-1950 in the name of defendant No. 1 Shivnarayan and extensively repaired and enlarged in 1956-57, is really her property the nominal owner being only a benamidar while she, F. A. No. 11 of 1962 decided on 12-7-1966. NT besides retaining the title deed, had also been in possession all the time. Accordingly, the prayer was for declaration firstly of her title and further that it was not affected by the sale deed executed on 13-6-1960 by benamidar Shivnarayan defendant No. 1 in favour of his own wife defendant No. 2 for the ostensible consideration of Rs. 8,000.

(2.) THE real difficulty in this case, for somewhat difficult it certainly is, does not lie in any uncertainty about the principles applicable when the plaintiff alleges that she is the real owner and that the ostensible owner is only a benamidar. THE established law is that such a claimant has effectively to neutralise the strong presumption attached to formal deeds of title and other formal acts supporting the title of the ostensible owner. He has by definite evidence to show that when the ostensible ownership started either by the purchase of the property or by its creation, the cost was incurred by him and not by the ostensible owner; in addition, that he did not throw away his money as a gift to the defendant but was even at that time of the clear intention that he would be the real owner while the person in whose name the property stood would only be a benamidar. Again, there should be an unmistakable indication from the very beginning that the claimant exercised control and possession of the property and had not effaced himself completely in that regard. One of the ways of exercising such control would be the retention of the title deeds or other documents like rent or tax receipts or those arising out of similar dealings with public authorities. It is also usual to expect the claimant to show why at all it was considered necessary to have a benami arrangement. This suit has been studied by the lower Court in the light of these principles and found wanting and accordingly dismissed.

(3.) A good deal of the evidence-and also the argument in the lower Court -was in regard to the caste and the original home of the plaintiff, and the nature of her relationship with Madansingh in his time, and further whether the two boys, she had brought from Ujjain, are her adopted sons. These questions are not germane to the present controversy and will only be touched upon in the appropriate context.