Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
Brij Bhushan – Appellant
Versus
Satya Bhudhsn Verma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard submissions of Sri R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ankit Pandey and Sri Shashank Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Yogendra Singh and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava appearing on behalf of the respondent and perused the record.
2. By means of instant second appeal preferred under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant-appellants in Original Suit No.391 of 2000, Shukhnandan Satya Bhushan Verma versus Dr. Brij Bhushan and two others, have assailed the concurrent findings of judgments of both courts below. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.22, Lucknow, had decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents in respect of the suit property, which is House No.531/16Ga, situated at Bhindiya Tola, Bara Chaandganj, Lucknow. The learned trial court issued a mandatory injunction to defendant-appellant Dr. Brij Bhushan to vacate one-half of the western portion of the said house under his occupation, which consists of a room and veranda, kitchen, latrine, bathroom, gallery and staircase on the ground floor and construciton raised on the first floor thereof within prescribed period
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 burden of proving a benami transaction rests on the party asserting the plea, and the defendants failed to discharge this burden.
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 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....
Section 4 (2) bars a claim or defence permitting "real owner" of such property and has been held from saying that property is benami.
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
