Property purchased in a Hindu woman’s name remains her absolute property absent proof of joint-family funds.

The plaintiffs—B. Devaraj, B. Yogesh and B. Sarojamma—filed O.S. No. 914/2005 seeking partition and separate possession of their alleged shares in properties bearing Municipal Nos. 43, 44 and 45, Subedar Chatram Road, Bengaluru.

The properties had been purchased under a registered Sale Deed dated 14.03.1963 in the name of Smt. Lalithamma, mother of defendant No.1, S. Balasubramanya, and grandmother/mother-in-law of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs contended that the consideration had been provided by Lalithamma’s husband, D.M. Subbaiah, from joint-family funds and that Lalithamma was only a nominal or benami purchaser.

After Lalithamma’s death, defendant No.1 executed a registered Sale Deed dated 22.12.2004 in favour of M/s. Rajesh Exports Limited, the appellant.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that this sale was not binding on their alleged shares.

The Trial Court held that the property was joint-family property, declared the subsequent sale deed non-binding on the plaintiffs’ respective shares, and granted each plaintiff a 1/4th share.

The appellant challenged that decree under Section 96 CPC.

An earlier remand order of the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court, which directed the High Court to decide the appeal on the existing record.

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the Suit Schedule Property was joint-family property despite the registered Sale Deed dated 14.03.1963 standing in the name of Smt. Lalithamma.

2. Whether the Trial Court correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in holding that the Sale Deed dated 22.12.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the appellant was not binding on the plaintiffs.

3. Whether the Trial Court correctly applied Sections 14 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in determining the nature and devolution of the property.

4. Whether the impugned Judgment and Decree warranted interference in appeal.

Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides that property possessed or acquired by a female Hindu, including property acquired by purchase, is held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner.

Sections 15(1)(a) and 16 provide that, on the intestate death of a female Hindu, her property devolves first upon her sons, daughters—including children of a predeceased son or daughter—and husband, with heirs in the same entry taking simultaneously.

Under Gangamma v. G. Nagarathnamma, property standing in the name of a female Hindu is presumed to be her absolute property in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Under D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L. Balasubramanyam and Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade v. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade, there is no presumption that every property held by a member of a joint Hindu family is joint-family property; the person asserting that character must first establish an adequate joint-family nucleus, after which the burden may shift.

Marabasappa v. Ningappa similarly requires cogent evidence connecting the acquisition with an available joint-family nucleus.

Under Mangathai Ammal v. V. Rajeswari, the burden of proving a benami transaction rests on the person asserting it, and the Court must consider the source of consideration, possession, motive, relationship and subsequent conduct.

The plaintiffs bore the initial burden of proving that sufficient joint-family funds existed in 1963 and that the consideration for the purchase came from those funds.

They failed to produce reliable evidence of such a nucleus or of the actual source of consideration.

PW-1 entered the family only in 1979 and therefore had no personal knowledge of the 1963 transaction, while PW-2 and PW-3 gave substantially hearsay evidence.

The registered Sale Deed expressly named Lalithamma as purchaser, acknowledged receipt of the entire consideration from her, delivered possession to her, and conferred on her the right to collect rents.

Her subsequent conduct supported individual ownership: she conveyed part of the larger property in her own name and executed a registered 33-year lease in 1979 describing herself as the sole and absolute owner, with defendant No.1 attesting the lease.

The earlier sale deeds and mortgage documents merely established the historical chain of title and did not prove that the 1963 consideration emanated from joint-family funds.

The plaintiffs also failed to establish the alleged benami character of the transaction.

Accordingly, Section 14(1) applied, making Lalithamma the full owner.

Upon her death, defendant No.1 succeeded under Sections 15 and 16 because the plaintiffs had not pleaded or proved the alleged daughter Prameela’s legal status or the entitlement of her son Mallikarjuna.

It held that the Suit Schedule Property was the absolute property of Smt. Lalithamma, not joint-family property, and that defendant No.1 had succeeded to it and was competent to execute the Sale Deed dated 22.12.2004 in favour of the appellant.

The plaintiffs therefore had no established share in the property, and their suit for partition and consequential reliefs was dismissed.

Pending applications were closed, with no order as to costs.