Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: banami in N. Ganesan vs Nagarathnam (Died) on 19 June, 2003Matching Fragments
9. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and considered the matter carefully.
10. It is not in dispute that there was a partition in the year 1973 in reference to the landed properties and earlier, a release deed in the year 1959 in reference to the landed properties which were approximately to a total extent of 40 acres of land. It is not convincingly explained as to why the house properties, which are the subject matter of the present suit, were not included if they really were joint family properties. The learned Subordinate Judge failed to consider whether there was a joint family in existence consisting of late Nithyanandham and his sons and whether the property was purchased in the name of one of the sons for the benefit of the joint family. The reason advanced by the plaintiffs is that the purchase was banami in order to avoid the Government Servants' Conduct Rules. The said argument is not sustainable. It is an admitted fact that all the suit properties as well as the landed properties were acquired only by late Nithyanandham. There was no ancestral nucleus and income. The landed properties were purchased in the name of Nithyanandham, whereas the first item of the suit property was obtained in the name of the first defendant, of course from the funds provided by his father. There is no no reason as to why he should provide funds to the first defendant when he could have purchased it in the name of his wife or the other children. Besides, there is absolutely no explanation as to why even the after the death of Nithyanandham, the property continued to be enjoyed by the first defendant and was treated as his property, as evidenced by the release deed of the year 1959 and the partition deed of the year 1973. The acceptance of the right of the first defendant for nearly 20 years speaks loudly against the present claim of the plaintiffs that the property was purchased benami in the name of the first defendant.