Benami case laws | Benamidar meaning in urdu | Benami meaning in urdu ? How to prove benami transaction
 |
| Benami transaction |
Benami meaning in English.
"Benami" refers to a situation where property is held by one person on behalf of another without the latter's knowledge. It often involves transactions where the person providing the consideration for the property is different from the one in whose name the property is held. In many jurisdictions, holding property in a benami arrangement is illegal and can be subject to legal consequences.
Benami meaning in Urdu?
"بے نامی" سے مراد ایسی صورت حال ہے جہاں جائیداد ایک شخص کی طرف سے دوسرے شخص کے نام لگا دی جاتی ھے۔ اور پا کستان میں اکثر لو گ قریبی رشتہ داروں کےنام جائیداد خریدتے ھیں اور بعد میں وہ رشتہ دار یا اس کی اولاد پراپرٹی واپس کرنے سے انکاری ہو جاتے ہیں۔ اس میں اکثر لین دین شامل ہوتا ہے جہاں جائیداد کی ملکیت رکھنے والا شخص اس شخص سے مختلف ہوتا ہے جس کے نام پر جائیداد رکھی گئی ہے۔ بہت سے دائرہ اختیار میں، بے نامی انتظام میں جائیداد رکھنا غیر قانونی ہے اور اس کے قانونی نتائج ہو سکتے ہیں۔
- Following dawa main petitioner ne dawa kia ke 8 Kanal se ooper ki property ju ke mere bhai ke nam per hai main ne kharidi thi or asal malik main hun
- Motive bhai ke nam per khareedne ki wajah yeh batai ke , main sarkari mulazam ( teacher) hai jiss dar ki wajah se bhai ke nam per khareedi
- Dosri wajah yeh batai ke mera bivi ke sath jhagra rehta jiss ki wajah se benami transaction ke through bhai ke nam per kharidi
- Trial Court ne issue frame kiye or shahadat ke baad case dissmiss kar dia
- Appellate court ne bhi faisla dismissed ka barqarar rakha
- Jiss ke baad High Court ne bhi revision petition main case dissmiss kar dia.
- Reasons case dissmiss hone ki
- Pehli baat ju Court ne consider ki wo yeh thi ke sarkari teacher koi aisi job nahi thi ke wo apne nam property nahi khareed sakta tha.
- Or dosri reason bivi se jhagra bhi koi aisa motive nahi hai ke property bhai ke nam per kharidi jai
- Or evidence pesh karne main bhi petitioner nakam raha
- Jab funds ke bare main batya gia ke petitioner ne bataya ke property khareedne ke liye raqam dosto se udhar li thi.
- Phir us ke baad koi dosat ki evidence na karwai gai jiss ne raqam udhar di hu
- Petitioner yeh bhi nahi bata saka ke property bhai ke nam muntqil karne ke baad qabza kio bhai ko de dia
- Jiss ke baad original document bhi bhai ke pass the
High court case law on benami transaction
Stereo. H C J D A 38
JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
Judicial Department
Civil Revision No. 2597/2014
Riaz Ahmad versus Nasir Ahmad
JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing
23.06.2022
For Petitioner
Sardar M. Asim Javid, Advocate.
For Respondent
Sh. Usman Karim ud Din, Advocate.
MUHAMMAD RAZA QURESHI, J. Through this
Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), the Petitioner has challenged the
Judgments and Decrees dated 20.12.2012 and 29.05.2014
passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate
Court respectively, whereby learned Courts below
concurrently dismissed the Suit for declaration of „benami‟
transaction.
2.
On 11.03.2005 the Petitioner, Riaz Ahmad filed a Suit
seeking declaration that his brother Nasir Ahmad, Defendant
be declared as „benamidar‟ and it is actually the Petitioner
who is the owner of the suit property admeasuring 08 Kanals
14 Marlas situated in Chak No.96-GB, Tehsil Jaranwala. In
his Suit, the Petitioner contended that he is a government
servant and serving as Drawing Teacher, who purchased land
from one Nazeer Ahmad and upon seeking possession, the
said land was transferred through Mutation No.905 dated
24.12.1997. According to the contents of the plaint the
Petitioner claimed that Defendant is his brother and he is
only a „benamidar‟ and not the real owne
C.R No.2597/2014
2
3.
The motive expressed in the Suit for purchasing the
property in the name of his brother was that the Petitioner
being a government servant cannot hold property in his name
and since he had ongoing controversy and litigation with his
wife, therefore, he transferred the subject matter property in
the name of his brother. According to the contents of plaint,
the Petitioner asserted that the Respondent being not a man
of income could not have purchased the property in his name.
4.
Through written statement the Respondent vehemently
contested the Suit and, inter alia, contented that the
Petitioner being a school teacher had no means of income
and it was the Respondent who paid the price for purchasing
the property which is a joint Khata and accordingly property
stood transferred in the name of the Respondent. Out of
divergent pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Court on
08.07.2006 framed as many as 11 Issues duly discussed in
the Judgments passed by the learned Courts below.
5.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that both
learned Courts below erred in law and committed material
illegality while passing the Impugned Judgments and
Decrees and failed to advert that the Petitioner had
discharged his onus, whereas the Respondent failed to justify
his income for purchasing the subject matter property.
Learned counsel submits that Impugned Judgments and
Decrees are liable to be set aside and consequently Suit of the
Petitioner is liable to be decreed in his favour.
6.
Conversely, learned counsel for the Respondent
submits that there are contradictions in the evidence of the
Petitioner and his pleadings and Petitioner throughout failed
to satisfy the tests laid down by the provisions of law as well
as the Judgments and therefore, both learned Courts below
lawfully dismissed the Suit filed by the Petitioner.
C.R No.2597/2014
3
7.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. Obviously, in order to ascertain if the
transaction is „benami‟ or otherwise, there are important
ingredients which need proof or disproof, these are the
motive; source of money with which the property was
purchased; the possession of the property; the conduct of the
parties, as to how, the property was dealt with; and
possession of the original title document.
8.
It is to be borne in mind that keeping in view the aforenoted tests the initial burden of proof is on the party who
alleges that ostensible owner is a „benamidar‟ for him and
therefore, the weakness in the defence evidence would not
relieve a plaintiff from discharging the burden of proof.
There is no cavil to the well established principle that the
burden of proof may shift from one party to the other during
the course of trial of a suit but that burden only shifts once
the initial burden is discharged by the plaintiff. Reliance in
this regard is placed upon the case of “Abdul Majeed and
others vs. Amir Muhammad and others” (2005 SCMR 577),
wherein at page 585 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as
under:-.
“(i) It is the duty of the party who raises such
plea to prove such plea by adducing cogent,
legal, relevant and unimpeachable evidence of
definitiveness. The Court is not required to
decide this plea on the basis of suspicions,
however, strong they may be.
(ii) That Court is to examine as to who has
supplied the funds for the purchase of property
in dispute, it is proved that purchase money
from some person other than the person in
whose favour the sale is made, that
circumstance, prima facie, would be strong
evidence of the Benami nature of the
transaction.
(iii) The character of a transaction is to be
ascertained by determining the intentions of the
C.R No.2597/2014
4
parties at the relevant time which are to be
gathered from the surrounding circumstances i.e.
the relationship of parties, the motives
underlying the transaction and any other
subsequent conduct.
(iv) The possession of the property and custody
of title deed."
9.
This Court has examined the evidence with the able
assistance of learned counsel for the parties and in the light
of the above noted criteria this Court holds that there is no
evidence on record that the consideration paid emanates from
any monetary source of the Petitioner. Likewise, the
purported motive canvassed in the Suit can hardly be
considered creditworthy or trustworthy. So far as the title
documents are concerned, the Petitioner had only produced
in evidence the certified copy of the title in favour of the
Respondent which can hardly be considered to satisfy the
tests applicable for „benami‟ transaction i.e. that from whose
custody the original title deed and other document came in
evidence.
10. In oral deposition PW-1 namely Nazeer Ahmad during
his cross-examination conceded that he partially received
money on the day of transfer from the Respondent Nasir and
he gave statement before Tehsildar that he received money
from the said Respondent. He also admitted that he handed
over possession to Nasir. To the extent of motive, he simply
stated that he was informed that the property was being
transferred due to ongoing dispute of the Petitioner with his
wife. The Petitioner who appeared as PW-2 conceded in his
cross-examination that he did not pay money from his own
account rather for the payment of consideration he borrowed
money from his friends. It is an admitted position on record
that none of his friends appeared to support the version of the
Plaintiff through his deposition. Since the initial onus was on
C.R No.2597/2014
5
the Petitioner and he failed to produce his best evidence to
prove his version as a consequence thereof, he cannot
contend that still his Suit was liable to be decreed. Reliance
in this regard is placed upon “Muhammad Sarwar vs.
Mumtaz Bibi” (2020 SCMR 276).
11.
So far as the tests of production of original document
and possession are concerned, both learned Courts below in
the light of evidence led by the respective parties rightly held
that the Petitioner in his Suit had failed to discharge his onus
to satisfy that why the possession was handed over to his
brother Nasir, which throughout remained with him. In terms
of law once the onus is not discharged by the Petitioner, it
never stood shifted to the Respondent and in such scenario,
the weaknesses in the evidence of the Respondent shall not
advance the case of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was bound
to seek strength from his own case and not from the
weaknesses of the Respondent. Reliance in this regard is
placed upon “Nasir Ali vs. Muhammad Asghar” (2022
SCMR 1054), “Mushtaq ul Aarfin vs. Mumtaz Muhammad”
(2022 SCMR 55), “Muhammad Sajjad Hussain vs.
Muhammad Anwaar Hussain” (1991 SCMR 703).
12. Throughout in his evidence and even before this Court
the Petitioner failed to satisfy about Exh.D-1 which is a copy
of an earlier suit filed by the Petitioner against the
Respondent wherein he himself had conceded the status of
the Respondent. This said suit was subsequently withdrawn
by the Petitioner.
13.
So far as the motive for purchasing the property in the
name of his brother i.e Respondent as „benamidar‟ is
concerned, suffice it to observe that a school teacher is not
such a sensitive post that nobody can purchase the property
in his own name. Likewise, having a dispute with his wife
C.R No.2597/2014
6
would give no justification or reason to purchase the property
in the name of his brother as „benamidar‟ therefore, the said
story seems to be concocted and not reliable. Even otherwise,
during the course of evidence and deposition no such
documentary proof was produced on record justifying the
motive crafted by the Petitioner. Reliance in this regard is
placed upon “Malik Muhammad Zubair and 02 others vs.
Malik Muhammad Anwar and 02 others” (PLD 2004 Lahore
515). In view of these facts and clear position of law and in
presence of such a weak evidence adduced by the Petitioner
the learned Courts below rightly and lawfully considered that
the Suit of the Petitioner was liable to be dismissed.
14. Therefore, this Court holds that the Petitioner failed to
15. In such circumstances, both the learned Courts below
rightly arrived at a conclusion and dismissed the Suit filed by
the Petitioner and committed no material illegally as both the
learned Courts below rightly concluded that the Petitioner
failed to prove his case. Upon perusal of the record, this
Court has observed no misreading or non-reading of evidence
by the learned Courts below.
16. In legal parlance a revisional power of the High Court
is exercised for correcting an error committed by the
subordinate Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction and even
mere erroneous decision would not call for interference
No.2597/2014
7
unless it is established that the decision was based on no
evidence or the evidence relied upon was inadmissible or the
decision was perverse so as to cause grave injustice. This is
settled law that the High Court in revisional jurisdiction
cannot upset the concurrent findings of facts by means of reexamination of evidence and in the present case, the perusal
of record would not show any misreading or non-reading of
evidence brought on the record by the parties or suggest that
the Court of first instance and the Appellate Court had drawn
wrong conclusion from the evidence calling for interference
of the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
17. It must be understood that the Revisional Court has a
narrow and limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent
rulings arrived at by the courts below while exercising power
under Section 115 CPC. These powers have been entrusted
and consigned to the Revisional Court in order to secure
effective exercise of its superintendence and visitorial powers
of correction unhindered by technicalities which cannot be
invoked against conclusion of law or fact, which do not in
any way affect the jurisdiction of the court but is confined to
the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence,
jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the
judgment which may have material effect on the result of the
case or the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or contrary
to the law. Therefore, interference for the mere fact that the
appraisal of evidence may suggest another view of the matter
is not possible in revisional jurisdiction.
18. Therefore, the scope of the appellate and revisional
jurisdiction must not be mixed up or bewildered. The
interference in the revisional jurisdiction can be made only in
the cases in which the order passed or a judgment rendered
by a subordinate Court is found to be perverse or suffering
from a jurisdictional error or the defect of misreading or non-
No.2597/2014
8
reading of evidence and the conclusion drawn is contrary to
law. Reliance in this regard is placed upon “Hadayat Ullah
versus. Murad Ali” (PLD 1972 SC 69), “Noor Muhammad
and others Versus Mst.Azmat-e-Bibi” (2012 SCMR 1373),
“Mst.Zaitoon Begum Versus Nazar Hussain and another”
(2014 SCMR 1469) and “Sardar Muhammad Kamal-ud-Din
Khan Versus Syed Munir Syed and others” (2022 SCMR
806).
19. In view of above, the concurrent findings contained in
the Impugned Judgments and Decrees of learned Courts
below are neither tainted with any misreading or non-reading
of evidence nor the same suffer from any material illegality
or material irregularity affecting merits of the case.
20. Consequently, the Impugned Judgments and Decrees
are upheld and instant Civil Revision is dismissed with no
order as to costs.
MUHAMMAD RAZA QURESHI
JUDGE
Approved for Reporting
JUDGE
Comments
Post a Comment