Benami Claim by Children Against Property Held in Mother’s Name — Burden of Proof and Finality of Title.
 |
| Benami property |
والدہ کے نام جائیداد اور اولاد کا Benami دعویٰ
تمہید
کیس کا مختصر پس منظر
Benami لین دین کا قانونی تصور
ثبوت کی بھاری ذمہ داری
نیت اور طرزِ عمل کی اہمیت
شوہر کی زندگی میں خاموشی
اولاد کے دعویٰ کی قانونی حیثیت
عدالتی فیصلہ
نتیجہ
Must read Judgement
2025 SCMR 2087
[Supreme Court of Pakistan)
Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ
Mst. NASIRA ANSARI and others ---Appellants
Versus
Late TAHIRA BEGUM through Legal Heirs and others-Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 41-K of 2021, decided on 17th July, 2025.
(Direct appeal against the judgment dated 01.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in HCA No. 340/2006).
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--
--Ss. 42 & 54-Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120---Suit for declaration and injunction-Benami transaction---Proof---Onus to prove Assets in the name of spouse or children-Appellants/plaintiff's claimed that suit properties were Benami transactions in favour of respondent/ defendant, who was their real mother Contention of appellants/plaintiffs was that they had been deprived of their legal share by respondent/defendant who was just an ostensible owner---Validity---Attributes of "Benami transaction", in reality means a transaction in the name of another person to describe and express a transaction of a property who holds that property as an ostensible owner for its beneficial owner-In fact, it is a genre of transaction where somebody recompenses for the property but does not get hold of it in his personal name Person in whose name such type of property is purchased is called Benamidar and the property so purchased is called Benami property---Despite the fact a Benami property is purchased in the name of someone else, the person who sponsored the transaction is the real owner By and large, the assets acquired in the name of spouse or a child for which the money is paid from known sources of income is called Benami property-Onerous sense of duty lies on the party who raises plea of Benami transaction to prove by adducing unimpeachable evidence-Court is not required to decide such pleas on the basis of mere suspicion-Mode and manner of transaction is to be established by corroborating intentions of parties at the relevant time which could be congregated from surrounding circumstances such as relationship/association of parties, the motive or aspiration implicit in transactions including subsequent comportment and factum of possession of the property and custody of title documents---Best possible evidence could have been adduced by deceased himself if he had any dispute with regard to title of properties which he never raised in his lifetime-Even if properties were purchased through funds or resources of deceased husband, then both husband and wife were privy to such arrangernents/transactions in their own marital relationship--After passing of several years, children could not question or challenge title or ownership of properties in the name of their mother without any cogent proof or trustworthy evidence that she was actually an ostensible owner-Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court Appeal was dismissed.
Chancery Law Chronicles; https: // www. clcbd. org/ glossary/ 321.html https://www.clcbd.org/glossary/321.html; Pether Perumal v. Muniandy 1908 II.R 35 Cal 551 (558) P.C.; Gurkaran v. Shella AIR 1918 PC 140: Ch. Ghulam Rasool v. Nusrat Rasool PLD 2008 SC 146 and Abdul Majeed v. Amir Muhammad 2005 SCMR 577 rel.
Aminuddin Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
Respondents Ex-parte.