Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
T.Kamatchiammal – Appellant
Versus
Vijaya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.Murali Shankar, J.
The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.28 of 2017, dated 24.01.2018, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.28 of 2011, dated 21.02.2017, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
2. The appellants as plaintiffs have filed a suit to declare that “A” and “B” suit schedule properties belonged to the second plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the second plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original suit.
4. It is not in dispute that the first plaintiff is the mother of the second plaintiff, that the first plaintiff and her husband – Thangadurai had five children namely Vijayakandeepan – husband of the first defendant, Dharmaraj - 2nd plaintiff, Dhanabalan, Rajendran and Pushpa Gandhi and that the said Thangadurai had died in the year 1968.
5. The case of the plaintiffs is that the husband of the first plaintiff – Thangadurai
Claims of property ownership must be substantiated with credible evidence, as allegations of trust do not override the Benami Transactions Act without proof of fraud.
The court held that a claim for property belonging to a joint Hindu family is not barred as benami under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act when purchased with family funds, requirin....
Benami Transaction – One who alleges that a property is benami and is held, nominally, on behalf of real owner, has to displace initial burden of proving that fact.
The court held that the rejection of the plaint was improper as the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the property did not qualify as benami under the exceptions provided in the Benami Transactions....
The court emphasized that in ex parte cases, the plaintiff must prove their claims, and the statutory presumption under the Benami Transactions Act favors the spouse unless rebutted.
A benami transaction to a married daughter does not qualify for exemption under Section 3(2)(a) of the Old Act, rendering the plaintiffs' suit barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act.
Benami Transactions – Property purchased by husband – Contribution of wife directly or indirectly, she has right over the property acquired by husband.
Ownership claims under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act require clear documentary evidence; failure to provide such proof leads to dismissal of claims.
The burden of proving a benami transaction rests on the party asserting the plea, and the defendants failed to discharge this burden.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
