Respondent no. 1 filed a title suit claiming that he had purchased suit property from respondent no. 2 for certain consideration vide an agreement of sale . Appellant, husband of respondent no. 2, however, claimed that suit property was purchased by him from his earning benami for respondent no. 2 (wife) .  Appellant however failed to file any supporting documents to indicate either his ownership over disputed property or his individual income . Court held that  in absence of any documentary evidence, mere statement of appellant that he was purchaser of property could not be treated as gospel truth, neither could property be said to be benami . Order of Trail Court affirmed .