C. Thangaraj Vs C. Chandran — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

C. Thangaraj Vs C. Chandran — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants. First appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; the Judgment and Decree dated 22.11.2016 in O.S.No.142 of 2010 confirmed; connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD)No.4972 of 2017) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share in item Nos.1 to 23 and 1/8th share in item Nos.24 to 26? +1 more

Court's answer

It can be presumed that Chinnakaruppathevar, father of the plaintiff, purchased suit items 24 and 25 out of the income derived from ancestral item No.26; the defendants never pleaded that those properties were purchased as benami, supporting the plaintiff's 1/8th share entitlement in items 24 to 26.

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff discharged the initial burden by establishing that he and defendants 2 to 6 jointly purchased items 1 to 14 and were in joint possession and enjoyment as co-owners; the burden then shifted on defendants 2 to 6 to show that the plaintiff was a trustee, benami holder or name lender.

Key takeaways

Testing benami on the Valliammal indicia (source of purchase money, nature and possession after purchase, motive, position and relationship of parties, custody of title deeds, and subsequent conduct of the parties), the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.4 did not spell out these circumstances for suit items 1 to 14; further, the defendants did not initiate legal proceedings against the plaintiff despite the purchases being made between 23.08.1993 and 24.03.1997.ratio¶105
Properties held by the plaintiff as a member of the Hindu Undivided Family for its benefit, with consideration paid from the known source of income of such HUF, cannot be treated as benami transactions.ratio¶105

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition - First Appeal under S.96 CPC by defendants 2, 4 to 6 - Trial Court decreed plaintiff's 1/6th share in items 1 to 14 (claim over items 15 to 23 declined, not appealed by plaintiff) and 1/8th share in items 24 to 26, with permanent injunction - Items 1 to 14 purchased between 23.08.1993 and 24.03.1997 stand in deeds including the plaintiff's name - Plaintiff discharged initial burden of proving joint purchase and joint possession as co-owner; burden shifted on defendants 2 to 6 to prove plaintiff was a trustee, benamidar or name lender - Applying Valliammal v. Subramanian, 2004 (7) SCC 233 (six indicia: source of money, nature and possession, motive, relationship of parties, custody of title deeds, subsequent conduct), evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.4 silent on these circumstances - Properties held by plaintiff as HUF member from known HUF income not benami; where plaintiff's name appears in documents, inference of welfare or contribution; defendants failed to prove purchase without consent or fraud - Defendants never pleaded items 24-25 (purchased by father from ancestral item 26 income) as benami - No interference warranted; appeal dismissed, decree confirmed, no costs, connected CMP closed.