Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARINDAM SINHA, AVNISH SAXENA
Rajeev Kumar Maheshwari – Appellant
Versus
Kalpana Maheshwari – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute arises from marriage regarding property ownership. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. interpretation of family courts act regarding property claims. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. erroneous appreciation in evidence led to ex parte judgment. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's guidance for resolving concurrent suits on property. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. decision to allow the appeal and remand for trial. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
(Per Arindam Sinha,J.)
1. Husband in the marriage is appellant. He filed suit in respect of property purchased by him in name of his wife. The spouses have fallen out. The suit is for declaration that the purchase is not hit by subsequent amendment w.e.f., 1st November, 2016 to Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
2. Mr. Ashutosh Pratap Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and Mr. Saroj Giri, learned advocate for respondent. Having heard them it appears there was application dated 25th March, 2023 made by respondent (wife) under rule 11 in order VII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Then came impugned judgment dated 24th January, 2025. The judgment says, the plaint seeking relief under section 34 in Specific Relief Act, 1963 stands rejected by invoking section 7 of Fami
Disputes regarding property purchased during marriage fall within Family Courts' jurisdiction as per Family Courts Act, 1984.
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 affirmed that transactions between spouses under the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act do not constitute benami transactions, allowing for shared ownership claims based on evidence of ....
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 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
