13. This Court in a number of Judgments has held that it is well established that burden of providing that a particular sale is benami lies on the person, who alleges the transaction to be a benami. The essence of a benami transaction is the intention of the party or parties concerned and often, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof. Refer to Jaydayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazra 1974 (1) SCC 3 ; Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of M.P., 1977 (1) SCC 816; Thakur Bhim Singh v. Thakur Kan Singh, 1980 (3) SCC 72 ; Pratap Singh v. Sarojini Devi, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 734 ; Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra v. Heirs of Parshottam S. Shah, 1996 (4) SCC 490 . It has been held in the Judgments referred to above that the question whether a particular sale is a benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining the question no absolute formulas or acid test, uniformly applicable in all situations can be laid. After saying so, this Court spelt out the following six circumstances which can be taken as a guide to determine the nature of the transaction:
