The recent ruling by the Calcutta High Court clarified that the mere fact of a husband purchasing a property in his wife’s name does not automatically classify the transaction as a benami one.
Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee explained that even if it is proven that the husband provided the funds for the purchase, it must be shown that he intended to exclusively benefit from owning the property.
The court emphasized that in Indian society, it is not unusual for a husband to financially support his wife’s property acquisition. Therefore, this alone does not indicate a benami transaction. The source of funds is certainly an important factor, but it is not the sole determining factor, as stated in the court’s June 7 order.
According to the court, the crucial aspect to establish in claiming a benami transaction is the intent of the person who provided the consideration money. While the source of funds is significant, it is not sufficient on its own. The burden of proving a transfer as benami always rests with the party making the claim.
The court addressed the case of Sekhar Kumar Roy, who filed an appeal seeking the partition of a two-story house that his father, Sailendra, had built. Sailendra had purchased the land in the name of his wife, Lila. After Sailendra’s death in 1999, Lila, Sekhar, and their daughter Sumita each received a one-third share of the property.
Sekhar lived in the house until 2001 but later moved out and wanted to divide the property, which Lila and Sumita opposed. The situation worsened when Lila gifted her share to Sumita. Subsequently, Sekhar filed a petition claiming that the property was benami.
However, the court noted that Sekhar failed to provide any evidence regarding the amount of consideration money, its payment method, or the acquisition of the property itself. As a result, the court dismissed his claim, stating that he was unable to produce any relevant documentation concerning the property in question.
