Back
NIDHI GUPTA
Niranjan Kaur (Since Deceased) through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Amarjit Kaur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disputed ownership of property due to benami nature. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding locus standi and exceptions under benami act. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. need for evidence to determine benami status. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. bar under section 4 of the benami act requires evidence. (Para 10) |
| 5. revision petition dismissed, no error in lower court order. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant for setting aside order dated 26.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohali whereby petitioner/defendant's application dated 20.08.2015 under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-Niranjan Kaur (now deceased) had purchased suit property from the funds given to her by her son, who is the husband of plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 that prior to buying the said property in the name of petitioner-Niranjan Kaur, there was mutual agreement between the parties that the house in question/suit property will be transferred in the name of respondent No.1 and her children. However, as relationship between
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....
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....
A suit claiming rights in property cannot be dismissed at the threshold without a trial based on arguments of benami ownership as these require evidence to substantiate claims.
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 case established that for a transaction to fall under the exception of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the party must prove a fiduciary relationship and provide clear, cogent, an....
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
