Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.14 seconds)Patur Venkataseshayya vs Dubagunta Subrahmanyam And Ors. on 14 March, 1950
10. Arising from this, the real question for consideration is whether the suit for partition was maintainable. The terms of Ex. A-1 make it clear that the suit properties originally belonged to the second defendant and his father Ganapathi Asari but by virtue of the revenue auction they lost their title to the suit properties. Subsequently, when the revenue auction was set aside and the title was restored to them, it was not restored to them as exclusive owners of the property, but a persons holding the property for themselves as well as for the benefit of the appellants who had contributed to the deposit to be made for setting aside the sale and who were required to make other contributions for getting their share in the properties. As a consequence of setting aside the sale Ganapathi Asari and the second defendant became owners of the properties not in their own right and exclusively, but for themselves and for the benefit of the appellants. If so the appellants became entitled to the property a co-owners along with the second defendant and Ganapathi Asari in respect of the shares mentioned in Ex. A-1 and they could institute a suit for partition for working out their rights and separating their shares in the suit properties. The decision of this court in Patur Venkataseshayya v. Dubagunta Subramaniam as to when a transaction can be said to be benami, in a way supports my conclusions.
1