Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
HARKESH MANUJA
Ram Murti (Since Deceased) Now Represented By His Legal Heirs – Appellant
Versus
Shiv Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Harkesh Manuja, J.
The legal representatives of the plaintiff-Ram Murti are in Regular Second Appeal.
2. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 01.12.1988 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala (hereinafter to be referred as 'First Appellate Court'), whereby an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.1988 passed by the Court of Sub Judge First Class, Rajpura (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial Court'), decreeing the suit for declaration as well as permanent injunction, filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff, was allowed, resultantly dismissing the suit filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff.
3. Briefly stating, the appellant-plaintiff/Ram Murti (since deceased), who happened to be the nephew of respondent-defendant, filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be owner in possession of 1/3rd share of 06 biswas of land falling in Khewat Khatoni No. 37/142 Khasra No. 1166 / 1040 / 285 (2-17), situated in the revenue limits of Village Barahman Majra, Tehsil Fatehgarh Sahib (now district). It was pleaded that the above mentioned 06 biswas land was purchased vide registered sale
The burden of proving a transaction as benami lies on the person asserting it, requiring clear evidence and pleadings to support such claims.
The burden of proof in claiming a property as a benami lies on the person alleging it, and presumption favors the name holder unless proven otherwise.
The burden to prove a benami transaction lies with the claimant, necessitating substantial evidence rather than mere assertions to establish ownership claims under the Code of Civil Procedure.
A plaintiff claiming a benami transaction bears the burden of proof, and the absence of credible evidence can lead to dismissal of the claim.
where a cloud is raised over the plaintiffs title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction is the remedy. Where the plaintiff....
In partition suits concerning benami transactions, the burden of proving such claims lies with the defendants; failure to do so results in equal distribution of shares among legal heirs.
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.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish a property as benami, which was not satisfied in this case.
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
