In Brief
A daughter of a deceased estate agent sought a 1/4th share in properties purchased by her three brothers, claiming they were benami (held in their names but funded by their father). The trial court and high court dismissed her claim, finding the properties were self-acquired by the brothers despite the father's financial assistance. The Supreme Court upheld this dismissal, holding that while the father provided funds, this alone does not make a transaction benami. The father's intention—determined by surrounding circumstances—was to provide welfare to all his children as a parent, not to secretly own the properties. Therefore, properties registered in the brothers' names remained their own, and the daughter had no partition rights to them.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.