In a recent judgment, the Calcutta High Court has clarified that a transaction cannot be automatically classified as a benami transaction simply because a husband purchases a property in his wife's name. The court emphasized that even if it is established that the husband provided the consideration money for the purchase, it must be further proven that he intended to exclusively enjoy the benefits and rights associated with the property.

The division bench, comprising Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, highlighted the significance of the intention behind the supplier of the consideration money. The court's order, delivered on June 7, acknowledged that while the source of funds is indeed an important factor, it is not determinative on its own.

The judgment underscored that in Indian society, it is not uncommon for a husband to finance the acquisition of property in his wife's name. Consequently, this fact alone does not imply a benami transaction. The burden of proving that a transfer is benami always lies with the party making the claim.

The case before the court involved a dispute over a two-storey house constructed by the plaintiff's father, Sailendra. Sailendra had purchased the land in the name of his wife, Lila. Following his demise in 1999, Lila, along with their son Sekhar and daughter Sumita, inherited equal shares in the property. While Sekhar initially resided in the house until 2001, he later sought a partition of the property, which Lila and Sumita contested.

Complicating matters further, Lila subsequently relinquished her share, gifting it to her daughter Sumita. This prompted Sekhar to approach the court, alleging that the property was held benami.

However, the bench noted that Sekhar failed to produce any evidence regarding the amount of consideration money or the mode of payment for the property. The plaintiff could not present any documents pertaining to the disputed property. Consequently, the court dismissed Sekhar's claim.

It is important to mention that advocates Ayan Poddar, Soham Dutta, and Kamran Alam represented the plaintiff, while advocates Sagnik Chatterjee and Sayan Mukherjee appeared on behalf of the defendants in this case.

This ruling by the Calcutta High Court serves as a significant legal precedent, clarifying the conditions necessary to establish a benami transaction and highlighting that purchasing property in the name of one's spouse does not automatically indicate such a transaction.