UNION OF INDIA vs MOKSH BUILDERS AND FINANCERS LTD. AND ORS. ETC.

The Supreme Court held that the 3rd defendant was the true owner of the house, with the 2nd defendant acting merely as a benamidar. The Court established that in cases of benami transactions, the source of consideration and the actual beneficiary must be examined, as per the principles laid out in Gangadara Ayyar v. Subramania Sastrigal and Meenakshi Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The Court found that the 2nd defendant failed to prove the source of the Rs. 60,000 and did not enjoy the benefits of the sale, leading to the conclusion that the transaction was indeed benami, thus allowing the appeal and reversing the High Court's decision.