Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
Thanjai P.N.Chezhian – Appellant
Versus
T.Srinivasan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The plaintiff is the appellant, aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, rejecting the plaint, allowing the application filed by the defendants on the ground that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (herein after called as Act).
2.I have heard Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the respondent 1 to 4. There is no appearance on the side of the respondents 5 to 8.
3. Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are husband and wife and during the happier times, the plaintiff had purchased the suit property in favour of his wife and father-in-law. It is the case of the plaintiff that the entire sale consideration was met only by the plaintiff and there was no intention to benefit his wife and further, the plaintiff is entitled to establish that it was a benami purchase. The suit has been filed on the strength of these averments to declare that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the suit properties and for various other reliefs. Pending the suit, the property had been sold and the purchasers, de
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 prohibition on benami property transactions does not apply when the purchaser is a coparcener in a Hindu Undivided Family unless solid proof suggests otherwise.
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 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....
Disputes regarding property purchased during marriage fall within Family Courts' jurisdiction as per Family Courts Act, 1984.
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.
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
