Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)Section 4 in The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Vinod Kumar Dhall vs Dharampal Dhall (Deceased) Through His ... on 26 April, 2018
39. Similar observations have been made in Vinod Kumar Dhall vs.
Dharam Dhall (Deceased) Through his LRS & Ors. and Mallapa
RFA 70/2024 Page 11 of 15
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.04.2026
16:47:32
Girimallapa Betgeri and Ors. vs. R. Yellappagouda Patil and Ors., AIR
1959 SC 906.
Dal Chand vs Babu Ram And Ors. on 11 July, 1980
40. Reliance is also placed on Dal Chand vs. Babu Ram, AIR 1981 All
335, wherein it was held that where the Suit was founded on the averment
that the purchase was in the name of a member of a coparcenary. It was
really a purchase by the joint family and so no question of Benami
transaction arose.
Pawan Kumar vs Babulal Since Deceased Through Lrs on 2 April, 2019
41. Reliance is also placed on Pawan Kumar vs. Babulal Since Deceased
through LRs & Anr., 2019 SCC 367, wherein it has been observed that
whether the plea raised by the Appellant is barred under Section 4 of
Benami Transaction Act or not, cannot be a subject of assessment at the
stage of Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
G. Tuhin Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 21 April, 2020
42. Similar observations have been made in G. Tuhin Kumar vs. State
Bank of India, MANU/YL/0089/2020.
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 21 March, 2012
43. It is further asserted that learned Trial Court has wrongly placed
reliance on Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernande vs. Erasmo Jack De
Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370, to hold that despite a challenge being raised to
the ownership of the Plaintiffs and a claim of co-ownership being raised,
merely the possession rights could not have been adjudicated in the Suit
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
K. V. Narayanaswami Iyer vs K. V. Ramakrishna Iyer And Ors on 26 March, 1964
38. Reliance has been placed on K. V. Naarayanaswami Iyer vs. I. V.
Ramakrishna Iyer, AIR 1965 SC 289, wherein it was held that if on the date
of acquisition of a particular property, the joint family had sufficient nucleus
for acquiring the property in the name of any member of the joint family, it
should be presumed to be acquired from the family funds, so as to form part
of the joint family property unless the contrary is proven.
1