Smt. P.Leelavathi (D) By Lrs. vs V.Shankarnarayana Rao(D) By Lrs.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

3. The plaintiff had major share which were purchased by the deceased in the names of himself and the plaintiff. Late G. Venkata Rao was a head clerk attached to an advocate’s 5 office in Civil Station, Bangalore. On retirement, the deceased indulged in and acted as an estate agent in a most casual manner. At any rate, he was not doing money­ lending business nor did he purchase properties as is sought to be made out in the plaint. The deceased was at no point of time in affluent circumstances. The solvency of the deceased was at a very low ebb at the time of his death and he left no jewellery. Even the furniture available at Premises No. 138, Aga Abbas Ali Road, Bangalore was not worth mentioning inasmuch as the pieces left could be counted on finger tips. The value of the entire hold effects would not exceed Rs.400.00. Only Items 10, 12, 19, 20, 21 and 22 out of the said premises were valuable articles of the deceased. The other items never existed at any point of time. The plaintiff had the best of things from her father while he was alive. She was the recipient of favours shown by her father from time to time. The deceased stretched his generosity even to his son­in­law, the husband of the plaintiff. The deceased in fact emptied his resources at the calls of her daughter and her husband. The son­in­law also collected cash from the deceased. The plaintiff and her husband are also due in a 6 sum of Rs.3000/­ borrowed by them under a pro­note dated 11.06.1966 from the deceased and defendant No. 3. They are also due a sum of Rs.1500/­ under another pro­note dated 29.11.1966 payable to the deceased. The above amounts also carry interest at stipulated rates. The defendants serve their right to recover the said amounts through proper legal remedies. The plaintiff constructed a house bearing No. 150, Veerapillai Street with the said and financial assistance of her father. The plaintiff in active connivance with her husband ransacked the house No. 138, Aga Abbas Ali Road during the absence of the deceased and defendant No. 2 who had gone to Tirupathi and Madras. The plaintiff had made wrongful gains about this time somewhere in 1963. The plaintiff stayed with her husband at Chicmagalur only for about three months after her marriage. Thereafter she came with her husband to Bangalore and stayed with her father for nearly six years. The plaintiff is enjoying the special privilege and she has benefits bestowed on her, her husband and her children almost regularly. In addition to her father, defendant No. 2 was also looking after the needs of the plaintiff’s family at considerable expenses. 7 All the defendants are residing in rented houses. The claim of the plaintiff in respect of Item A to C in the plaint schedule is not tenable, in view of provisions of Section 2 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition of Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988, the plaintiff has no cause of action and no relief can be given to her. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs.

and (6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale.

11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.