“Father Bought It, But Brother Couldn’t Claim It”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Benami and Adverse Possession Defence in Family Property Battle

Case Name: Ganesh Chand (Through LRs) v. Kewal Krishan

Date of Judgment: 07 May 2026

Citation: RSA-21-1989

Bench: Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere proof that the sale consideration was paid by the father does not automatically establish a benami transaction. The Court reiterated that intention behind the transaction is the decisive test. It was further held that permissive possession originating from a family arrangement cannot mature into adverse possession unless there is clear and hostile assertion of ownership against the true owner. The Regular Second Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Summary: The dispute arose between two half-brothers over ownership and possession of a residential property. The respondent-plaintiff claimed ownership on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in his favour by Kafila Begum and asserted that the appellant-defendant was merely occupying the premises as a licensee whose licence had been terminated through legal notice dated 20.01.1983.

The appellant-defendant contested the suit by pleading that their father, late Dr. Arjun Dev, was the real owner of the property and had only purchased the same in the name of the plaintiff. It was argued that the transaction was benami in nature and that the defendant had been settled in the property since 1962. In the alternative, the defendant claimed ownership by adverse possession and also sought compensation for improvements allegedly carried out in the property.

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to hand over possession of the property. The defendant thereafter approached the High Court in Regular Second Appeal.

Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the evidence clearly established that the purchase money had been supplied by Dr. Arjun Dev. Reliance was placed upon the testimony of Sunder Lal, who had allegedly witnessed the transaction and confirmed that the consideration was paid by the father. The appellant also relied upon reconstruction activities and long possession to support the plea of adverse possession.

The High Court examined the principles governing benami transactions by relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Thakur Bhim Singh v. Thakur Kan Singh and Om Prakash Sharma @ O.P. Joshi v. Rajendra Prasad Shewda. The Court reiterated that the burden to prove a transaction as benami lies heavily upon the person asserting it and that the true test is the intention behind the transaction rather than merely the source of consideration.

Although the Court accepted that the sale consideration had indeed been paid by Dr. Arjun Dev, it found that the evidence on record clearly established that the father intended to purchase the property for the benefit of the plaintiff. Particular reliance was placed upon the testimony of Dr. Sunder Lal and the earlier statement of Dr. Arjun Dev acknowledging the plaintiff’s ownership. Consequently, the Court held that the transaction was not benami.

On the issue of adverse possession, the Court observed that the defendant’s possession was admittedly permissive in origin and arose during the lifetime of the father as part of a family arrangement. The Court held that permissive possession cannot become adverse unless a specific point of hostility against the true owner is pleaded and proved. Mere long possession, repairs, construction activities, or running business operations from the premises were held insufficient to establish hostile possession.

Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, the Court reiterated that adverse possession must be open, hostile, continuous, and unequivocally against the true owner’s title. Since the defendant had failed to establish any overt assertion of hostile ownership, the plea of adverse possession was rejected.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and affirmed the concurrent findings of the Courts below holding that the plaintiff was the lawful owner of the suit property. The Court ruled that the appellant had failed to prove either the plea of benami transaction or perfection of title by adverse possession.