Source of funds is not the sole determinant for establishing a transaction as benami.

The plaintiffs (appellants), led by the legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Kanti Bai (first wife of Ramphal Verma), filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and to declare a sale deed dated 09.05.2016 null and void

They contended that Ramphal Verma, while working as a lineman and money lender, purchased multiple properties between 2005 and 2009 in the names of his second wife (Respondent 1) and his niece-in-law (Respondent 3) using his own income

Following Ramphal’s death in 2016, the plaintiffs claimed absolute ownership, asserting the transactions were *benami*.

The defendants argued the properties were purchased using *Istridhan* (Respondent 1) and independent family funds (Respondent 3)

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the source of income

1. Whether the suit lands described in the plaint were purchased by Ramphal Verma from his own income in the names of Smt. Rambai and Smt. Sukrita, rendering the transactions *benami*?

The court applied the principle that the burden of proving a *benami* transaction rests strictly on the person asserting it, as established in *Jaydayal Poddar v. Mst. Bibi Hazra* (1974) 1 SCC 3

A registered deed carries a presumption that the apparent state of affairs is the real state of affairs

Furthermore, relying on *Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh* (2007) 6 SCC 100 and *Mangathai Ammal v. Rajeswari* (2020) 17 SCC 496, the court noted that the source of money is a relevant but not the sole or determinative factor; the intention of the person contributing the money, evaluated through surrounding circumstances and relationships, is paramount

The Court observed that while some witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-5) claimed Ramphal paid the consideration, the attesting witness (PW-6) admitted during cross-examination that Respondent No. 1 paid part of the consideration during registration

The Court found the plaintiffs' claim regarding Ramphal’s financial capacity improbable, noting testimony from his own brother (PW-4) that a lineman's salary was insufficient to purchase such lands, especially while paying alimony to his first wife

No documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the alleged money-lending business

Conversely, the Court accepted the defendants’ explanation that the purchases were funded by *Istridhan* (gold and silver provided at marriage)

Under the established rules of evidence, the plaintiffs failed to displace the initial legal presumption in favor of the registered owners.

The court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, dismissed the appeal, and upheld the validity of the registered sale deeds in favor of the defendants

No costs were ordered.