12.In the case reported in 1997-2-LW.908 (Parvathi Ammal v. Solai Ammal and another), the purchase is much before Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act 1988 and the Division Bench of our High Court under identical circumstances, observed that "Normally, the general presumption should be that the husband thought fit to purchase some of the items of the properties in the name of his wife for her benefit and welfare”....... “In such cases, Courts have been insisting upon very strong and specific claim at the instance of the defendants who project the claim of benami, in making it also obligatory on the part of such person to prove the same that the acquisition was not meant to be for the benefit or welfare of the person in whose name it was acquired but it was for the family only and that the ostensible owner was merely a name lender". It is further held therein that the question as to whether a particular sale or purchase is benami has different shades or characteristics taking colour from the facts and circumstances, present in each case before the court, the parties who assert such claim, the manner in which it is asserted and the mode of proof adopted. But, such difficulties were held not sufficient to relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami, of the onerous burden cast upon him to prove the object or intention in acquiring such properties, by any one in the name of another, particularly as in this case wherein the purchase had been by husband in the name of his wife".
