In Brief
A widow (represented by legal heirs after her death) sought partition of immovable and movable properties claimed to be joint family assets, alleging her brothers held them as benami (nominal) purchasers while their father supplied the funds. The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of her claim. Though the father had given financial assistance to his sons for property purchases, the Court held that mere monetary contribution does not establish benami character. The father's intention to provide welfare and shelter to his sons—mirroring his support of his daughter—precluded an inference that he intended to retain beneficial ownership. The burden of proving benami status rests on the claimant and requires comprehensive evidence beyond proof of funding."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.