In Brief
The plaintiff sought 1/4th share in properties purchased in the names of her three brothers, alleging they were benami (purchased nominally in brothers' names but funded by the father). The Supreme Court held that financial assistance alone from a father to his sons for property purchase does not establish a benami transaction. The intention of the donor—whether to provide shelter to his sons or to acquire properties for the family—is determinative. Examining the circumstances, including the father's provision of maintenance, financial help for the daughter's own house, and the use of registered sale deeds in the sons' names, the Court found no benami character. The plaintiff failed to prove the father intended family ownership rather than helping his sons acquire their own homes. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.