Calcutta High Court: Source Of Money Is Not A Decisive Factor In Order To Ascertain Benami Transaction


The Calcutta High Court in the case Sri Sekhar Kumar Roy versus Smt. Lila Roy & Another observed and has held that the source of money is not a decisive factor for ascertaining benami transactions.
The bench comprising of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee in the case observed and has stated that the burden of showing that a transfer is the benami transaction always lies upon the person who asserts it. Thus, if in the case the husband supplied the consideration money for acquiring of the property in the name of his wife and such a fact does not necessarily imply of with the benami transaction.
In the present case, petitioner or appellant, Sekhar, presented the plaint wherein it contended that his father, Sailendra Kumar Roy, since deceased, purchased the suit property by one registered deed of sale in the year 1969 in the benam of his wife, Lila Roy. Lila, thus, who happened to be a housewife, being the mere name lender, and she did not contribute any single farthing towards the consideration of money since she had no independent income at the relevant time for the purchase of the suit property.
In the said case, Sailendra got the building plan sanctioned in the name of Lila, and by spending money from his own fund and he conducted a two-story building. Thus, Sailendra died intestate, leaving behind his widow, Lila, the plaintiff, his son, and one daughter, namely Sumita Saha, who have inherited 1/3rd share each of the suit property as stated under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, Sekhar stayed in the suit property till 11.05.2011 and then Shekar started leaving.
The court in the case observed and has noted that the intention of the supplier for the consideration money is a vital fact which needs to be proved by the party who asserts benami. It has further been proved by the plaintiff that Sailendra really intended to enjoy the full benefit of the title alone.
Accordingly, the court held that Sekhar in the case has failed to discharge his burden to prove that the subject sale transaction being the benami transaction.
The counsel, Ayan Poddar, Soham Dutta, Kamran Alam appeared for the appellant.
The counsel, Sagnik Chatterjee, Sayan Mukherjee represented the respondent.