Burden of Proof in case of benami transactions
PLJ 2002 Karachi 148 · Sindh High Court
This case was about a husband, Din Muhammad Wagan, who claimed that properties registered in the name of his deceased wife, Mst. Farkhanda Khatoon, actually belonged to him alone. He said these were "benami" transactions, meaning the properties were bought with his own money but registered in his wife's name only for convenience, while he remained the real owner. After his wife died, her sister, Mst. Rashida Khatoon, claimed a share in the properties as a legal heir. The husband sued to have the court declare him the true owner of several properties, a bank locker's contents, and a loan receivable, and to block his sister-in-law from claiming any share.
The Sindh High Court ruled against the husband. It held that in benami claims, the burden of proof lies on the person asserting that the property, though registered in someone else's name, was actually bought with his own funds. The court found that all the documents were in the wife's name, and the husband failed to provide any evidence that he had actually paid for the properties from his own resources. Because he could not prove the benami claim, the properties were treated as genuinely belonging to the wife. As her legal heirs, her sister was entitled to inherit half the share, while the husband would inherit the remaining half as her surviving spouse.
This case matters because it clarifies that merely claiming a transaction is benami is not enough—concrete proof of payment and intent is required, protecting the inheritance rights of other legal heirs.
یہ مقدمہ ایک شوہر، دین محمد وگن، سے متعلق تھا جس کا دعویٰ تھا کہ اُس کی مرحومہ بیوی مسماۃ فرخندہ خاتون کے نام پر رجسٹرڈ جائیدادیں دراصل صرف اُسی کی ملکیت ہیں۔ اُس کا کہنا تھا کہ یہ "بے نامی" لین دین تھے، یعنی یہ جائیدادیں اُس کے اپنے پیسوں سے خریدی گئی تھیں مگر محض سہولت کی خاطر بیوی کے نام پر رجسٹر کرائی گئی تھیں، جبکہ اصل مالک وہ خود تھا۔ بیوی کی وفات کے بعد اُس کی بہن، مسماۃ رشیدہ خاتون، نے بطور قانونی وارث اِن جائیدادوں میں حصے کا دعویٰ کیا۔ شوہر نے عدالت سے استدعا کی کہ اُسے کئی جائیدادوں، ایک بینک لاکر کے سامان، اور ایک قابلِ وصول قرض کا اصل مالک قرار دیا جائے، اور سالی کو کسی بھی حصے کے دعوے سے روکا جائے۔
سندھ ہائی کورٹ نے شوہر کے خلاف فیصلہ دیا۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ بے نامی دعووں میں ثبوت فراہم کرنے کی ذمہ داری اُس شخص پر ہوتی ہے جو یہ دعویٰ کرتا ہے کہ جائیداد اگرچہ