Jayalakshmi vs M.Jamuna Rani on 8 June, 2016
25.InValliammal (died) By LRS Vs. Subramaniam and others
reported in (2004) 7 SCC 233, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 86 (1.57 seconds)Documents citing
Valliammal (D) By Lrs vs Subramaniam & Ors on 31 August, 2004
Dr. Ila Gupta vs Om Prkaash Gupta And Another on 12 September, 2025
22. The court's approach in cases, where the claim is that a property or set of properties, are benami, was outlined, after considering previous precedents, in Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh, where this court cited with approval extracts from Valliammal v. Subramaniam (supra):
Mangathai Ammal (Died) Through Lrs vs Rajeswari . on 9 May, 2019
This Court ultimately concluded after
considering its earlier judgment in the case of
Valliammal v. Subramaniam (2004) 7 SCC 233
that while considering whether a particular
transaction is benami in nature, the following six
circumstances can be taken as a guide:
Pushpalata vs Vijay Kumar (Dead) Thr. Lrs. on 5 September, 2022
10. The petitioner-plaintiffs urged that the facts of this case, and the
pleadings, established that the property was purchased long ago, by the father,
i.e., the late Laxmi Prasad for the benefit of the HUF could not be treated as that
of the sons. Reliance was placed on Section 4 (3) (a) of the Act in this regard, to
say that the ostensible owner could not, under the Act, be treated as the owner,
because the ownership was on behalf of the HUF. Reliance was placed on this
court’s judgment in Valliammal v. Subramaniam7 to urge that it is not only the
5 Order dated 27.08.2018, IA No. 91588/2018 allowed.
Sh. Subash Patwa vs Smt. Gaytri Devi on 18 November, 2009
Ld. Trial Court has not
appreciated that the said judgment has never been overruled and not only this
the ratio of said judgment i.e. test has been duly relied upon by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Valliammal (D) by LRs Vs. Subramaniam & Ors.
Reported in the Supreme Appeals Reporter (Civil) page no.769.
A.Mathu Bala vs A.Kalarani on 24 February, 2025
25(d) As per Ex.A1 and A2, 'A' and 'B' Schedule property
was purchased in the name of Pappathi Ammal and the position is clear.
The plea of benami was not raised by the father namely the husband of
Pappathi Ammal. Only after the death of the father namely Alagarsamy
Naidu, the case has been file. In the written statement, plea of benami
was taken only by the son and daughter of the said Alagarsamy Naidu.
Whether the sons and daughters can raise the plea of benami by pleading
that the property was that of the father and the mother is only a
benamidhar is no longer res intergra. Hence, as per the decision of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:32 pm )
18/20
A.S.(MD)No.150 of 2015
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Valliammal (D) by L.Rs. v. Subramaniam
and others, reported in 2004 (5) CTC 60 (SC) : 2004 (7) SCC 233, the
plea of benami can be taken by the father or husband, as the case may be
and not by the son of that person. In the instant case, the defendants have
no locus standi to raise such a plea of benami and hence, this Court is of
the considered view that viewing from any angle, Alagarsamy has no title
to convey under Exs.B1, B4 or B5 besides Exs.B1, B4 and B5 are not
proved in the manner known to law. Accordingly, the trial Court has
rightly rejected the case of the defendants and decreed the suit for
partition and hence, we find no valid reason to interfere with the
considered view of the judgment rendered by the trial Court.
A.Mathu Bala vs A.Kalarani on 24 February, 2025
25(d) As per Ex.A1 and A2, 'A' and 'B' Schedule property
was purchased in the name of Pappathi Ammal and the position is clear.
The plea of benami was not raised by the father namely the husband of
Pappathi Ammal. Only after the death of the father namely Alagarsamy
Naidu, the case has been file. In the written statement, plea of benami
was taken only by the son and daughter of the said Alagarsamy Naidu.
Whether the sons and daughters can raise the plea of benami by pleading
that the property was that of the father and the mother is only a
benamidhar is no longer res intergra. Hence, as per the decision of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
18/20
A.S.(MD)No.150 of 2015
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Valliammal (D) by L.Rs. v. Subramaniam
and others, reported in 2004 (5) CTC 60 (SC) : 2004 (7) SCC 233, the
plea of benami can be taken by the father or husband, as the case may be
and not by the son of that person. In the instant case, the defendants have
no locus standi to raise such a plea of benami and hence, this Court is of
the considered view that viewing from any angle, Alagarsamy has no title
to convey under Exs.B1, B4 or B5 besides Exs.B1, B4 and B5 are not
proved in the manner known to law. Accordingly, the trial Court has
rightly rejected the case of the defendants and decreed the suit for
partition and hence, we find no valid reason to interfere with the
considered view of the judgment rendered by the trial Court.
P.S.Benjamin Nesamani vs P.S.Saragrace Abegail on 3 February, 2015
27. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that
the sale transaction dated 19.11.1980 is a benami transaction wherein, the
defendant is the true owner; that the plaintiffs are duty bound to prove that the
property has been purchased by their father and that the person, who is
claiming ownership have to prove the same and relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Valliammal (dead) by LRs Vs. Subramaniam and
others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 233, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
13/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.85 of 2015
specifically held that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami lies
on the person who alleges the transaction to be a benami and spelt out the
following six circumstances, which can be taken as a guide to determine the
nature of the transaction and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder :
P.S.Benjamin Nesamani vs P.S.Saragrace Abegail on 3 February, 2015
27. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that
the sale transaction dated 19.11.1980 is a benami transaction wherein, the
defendant is the true owner; that the plaintiffs are duty bound to prove that the
property has been purchased by their father and that the person, who is
claiming ownership have to prove the same and relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Valliammal (dead) by LRs Vs. Subramaniam and
others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 233, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
13/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.85 of 2015
specifically held that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami lies
on the person who alleges the transaction to be a benami and spelt out the
following six circumstances, which can be taken as a guide to determine the
nature of the transaction and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder :
S.Thirugnana Johnson vs J.Princy Linnet Dorathy
In this context, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Hon`ble Apex Court in VALLIAMMAL V. SUBRAMANIAM AND OTHERS (2004 7 SCC 233), wherein the Hon`ble Apex Court has held as follows: