Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)
S.Bhanumathi Bai vs Kamala on 23 March, 2023 cites

Nand Kishore Mehra vs Sushila Mehra on 2 July, 1995

● Alternatively, even if it is found that Bapanna had paid the entire sale consideration, yet it must be presumed that it was intended for the benefit of his wife Rajeswari Bai. At any rate, mere payment of sale consideration is not the sole criterion for holding that a particular purchase is a benami purchase. Reliance was placed on Bhim Singh (dead) by L.Rs. and another v. Kan Singh [AIR 1980 SC 727]; Nand Kishore Mehra v. Sushila Mehra [(1995) 4 SCC 572] and Mangathai Ammal (Died) thru.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 93 - N Venkatachala - Full Document

Mangathai Ammal (Died) Through Lrs vs Rajeswari . on 9 May, 2019

Besides, in Mangathai Ammal case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Act cannot have retrospective effect which in the context would mean that the amended 12/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.233 of 2009 Act cannot affect pending suits. This would imply that neither the earlier version of the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, or the current version of the Act made in 2016, bars the plaintiff from pleading benami.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - M R Shah - Full Document

Kanagambaram Ammal vs Kakammal, Govindasamy, Pachammal, ... on 19 August, 2004

● In a suit where the plaintiff seeks declaration that Ext.P.3 and Ext.P.8 are invalid, she herself has not opted to examine herself, but instead examined only her son on her behalf. Necessarily, adverse inference may have to be drawn against the plaintiff. Reliance was placed on Kanagambaram Ammal v. Kakammal and others [AIR 2005 Mad 142] and P.D.P.Chinadurai v. T.Lakshmanan & others [2020-5- L.W.264]. Her non-examination is significant in the context of the fact that she asserts that Ext.D1=Ext.P17 and Ext.D2 =Ext.P18, sale deeds respectively relating to 'A' and 'B' schedules of properties were purchased benami by Bapanna Rao, and the burden of establishing that Rajeswari Bai did not have any resources of her own, is on her, 15/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.233 of 2009 which burden she has not discharged.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 13 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document

Thakur Bhim Singh (Dead) By Lrs And Anr. vs Thakur Kan Singh on 21 December, 1979

● Alternatively, even if it is found that Bapanna had paid the entire sale consideration, yet it must be presumed that it was intended for the benefit of his wife Rajeswari Bai. At any rate, mere payment of sale consideration is not the sole criterion for holding that a particular purchase is a benami purchase. Reliance was placed on Bhim Singh (dead) by L.Rs. and another v. Kan Singh [AIR 1980 SC 727]; Nand Kishore Mehra v. Sushila Mehra [(1995) 4 SCC 572] and Mangathai Ammal (Died) thru.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 67 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Smt. P.Leelavathi (D) By Lrs. vs V.Shankarnarayana Rao(D) By Lrs. on 9 April, 2019

 Bapanna Rao, the father of the plaintiff, admittedly, was working in the Commercial Tax Department, and was a DCTO when he superannuated, and it was his income that sustained the family. While the defendants assert that Rajeswari Bai had sthridhana property etc., to support her, the evidence on record indicates that there is no proof of any such sthridhana property had ever existed. Reliance was placed on the ratio in P. Leelavathi Vs V.Shankaranarayana Rao [2019 SCC Online SC 489] 10/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.233 of 2009 and Mangathai Ammal & Others Vs Rajeswari & Others [2019 SCC Online SC 717].
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - M R Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next