OM PRAKASH SHARMA@O.P. JOSHI v. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHEWDA & Ors.

HELD: 1. Th~ purchase of property by a husband in the name of his wife is a specie of Benami purchase that had been prevalent in India since ancient times. Such a practice appears to have been prevalent on account of the position of Hindu women to succession until the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act and the c amendments made thereto from time to time. In a situation where a Hindu widow had a limited right to the estate of the deceased husband under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, the purchase of immov~ble property by a husband in the name of the o wife in order to provide the wife with a secured life in the event of the death of the husband was an acknowledged and accepted feature of Indian life which even finds recognition in the explanation clause to Section 3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The High E Court was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the property though purchased from the funds of husband was really for the benefit of his widow and therefore she was the real owner of the property. The fact that the property was managed by husband which F fact accords with the practice prevailing in a Hindu family where the husband normally looks after and manages the property of the wife, is another relevant circumstance that was taken note of by the High Court to come to the conclusion that all the said established facts are wholly G consistent with the ownership of the property by widow. [Paras 10, 12] [581-E-G; 584-D-H]

#2. The plaintiff herself alongwith PW-2 were the witnesses who have testified in support of the claim of H 576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A adoption of her husband. Specifically, PW-2 though had stated that the adoption of husband of plaintiff took place 40 years back she could not recollect her own age; she had no recollection of number of years prior to the adoption when she got married and was unable to recall B when her sons got married and most surprisingly the age of her elder son at the time pf his marriage; the present age of the elder son or even the present calendar year. The evidence of the three witnesses would be inadmissible under Section 32(5) & (6) of the Evidence C Act inasmuch as on the date when the said evidence was recorded the controversy with regard to the adoption of husband of plaintiff had already occurred. The claim of the defendant No.1 to be the adopted son of the daughter of original owner could have been challenged only by such legal heirs on whom the property would have devolved following the death of his mother in the event the adoption of the defendant No. 1 is to be held to be invalid. In this context, the next legal E heir who·would have been entitled to succeed to the said property if the adoption of defen~ant No.1 is to be treated as invalid would not be the origin.al plaintiff inasmuch there was another heir who could have claimed a better title in such a situation. The High Court was fully justified in not entering into the issue of validity of the adoption of defendant No.1 or the gift deed executed in his favour as the said issues had become redundant/ inconsequential. [Paras 17, 19 to 21] [587-F; 588-C-E; 589-G-H; 590-A-C] F 0 G H Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased) through L. Rs. & Anr. v. Mst. Bibi Hazra & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 171": 1974 (1) SCR 70; Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh & Ors. 2001 (5) SCR 946: 2001 (6) sec 100; Kanakarathanammal v. S.Loganatha Mudaliar & OM PRAKASH SHARMA@ O.P. JOSHI v. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHEWDA 577