Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 8,42

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 117,119

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100

(a)    Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.8 & 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 119---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100---Claim of benami ownership against real brother--Appellant alleging suit property belonged to deceased father and respondent/brother was only a benami holder---Validity---Evidentiary worth--Legal effect examined---Essential elements and burden of proof---Motive and source of funds, proving of---Pre-requisites---Appellant merely filing suit for possession without seeking benami declaration and cancellation of registered deed---Legality and consequences---The key legal issue before the High Court was as to Whether the concurrent findings of courts below passing decree of possession in favour of the respondent were sustainable when the appellant s benami plea was unsupported by evidence or proper pleadings, and whether any substantial question of law arose to justify interference under S. 100 C.P.C. ?--Held: Upon court s query it transpired that no suit for cancellation of registered lease deed in favor of respondent No.1 was instituted by the appellant---Moreover, no suit for declaration was filed by appellant claiming or seeking a declaration that the subject property was owned by his deceased father---Further, sister of parties, who purportedly was appointed as a custodian was not made party in the suit--None of the ingredients pertaining to benami transaction were even pleaded by the appellant and the courts below correctly observed that the entire defense of the appellant was based on his oral and unsubstantiated assertion---Trial Court correctly placed the burden of proving the benami transaction on the appellant and the same was in accordance with Arts. 117 & 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984--Impugned judgments of the Courts below did not suffer from any infirmity, hence, did not warrant interference by High Court under S. 100 of C.P.C. since jurisdiction under S. 100 of C.P.C. was restricted---Appellant failed to highlight any misreading and non-reading of evidence by the courts below---Second appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. (b)    Benami transaction---…