Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.98 seconds)Section 33 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Gangadara Ayyar And Ors. vs Subramania Sastrigal And Ors. on 26 March, 1946
We have made a reference to the plaintiff's plea that
the purchase was "benami" and payment was made out of the
funds of defendant No. 3, which were drawn by him from his
own account. As has been mentioned, defendant No. 3 did
not care to appear and contest the suit even though he was
served and knew the nature of the plaintiff's claim and the
basis thereof. Defendant No. 2 appeared at the trial and
pleaded that he purchased the property "with his own money".
The source of the money was within his special knowledge,
but it will be recalled that he contended himself by
pleading that Rs. 10,000/- were paid by him by a cheque and
Rs. 50,000/ were paid before the Sub-Registrar. We have
made a reference to the plea of the Company in this respect.
It is no body's case that the sale of the house to
defendant No. 2 was fictitious and that the title of the
transferor was not intended to pass. What we have to
examine is whether the title, on sale of the house in Decem-
ber 1946, was transferred to defendant No. 3, who was. the
real purchaser, and not to defendant No. 2, who was only the
ostensible transferee and was no more than a "benamidar". It
has been held in Gangadara Ayyar and others v. Subrarnania
Sastrigal and others(1) that "in a ease where it is asserted
that an assignment in the name 011 one person is in reality
for the benefit of another, the real test is the source
whence the consideration came" It is also necessary to
examine in such eases who actually has enjoyed the benefits
of the transfer.
Meenakshi Mills, Madurai vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Madras on 26 September, 1956
Both these tests were applied by this Court
in Meenakshi Mills, Madurai v. The Commissioner of IncomeTax
Madras.(2) It is therefore necessary, in the present case,
to
(1) A I.R. 1949 F.C. 88.
Kalwa Devadattam And Two Others vs The Union Of India And Others on 19 April, 1963
The burden of proof is, however not static, and may
shift during the course of the evidence. Thus while the
burden initially rests on the party who would fail if no
evidence is led at all after the evidence is recorded,
it rests upon the party against whom judgment would be given
if no further evidence were adduced by 'either side, i.e. on
the evidence on record. As has been held by this Court
Kalwa Devadattam and others v. The Union of India and oth-
ers(1) that where evidence has been led by the contesting
parties on the question in issue, abstract considerations of
onus and out of place, and the truth or otherwise of the
case must. always be adjudged on the evidence led by the
parties. This will be so if the court finds that there is
no difficulty in arriving at a definite, conclusion. It is
therefore necessary to weigh the evidence in this case and
to decide whether, even if it were assumed that there was no
conclusive evidence to establish or rebut the "benami"
allegation, what would, on a careful assessment of the evi-
dence, be a reasonable probability and a legal inference
from relevant-and admissible evidence.
Ajodhya Prasad Bhargava vs Bhawani Shanker Bhargava And Anr. on 8 May, 1956
In taking.this view this Court has
noticed the decision in Ajodhya Prasad Bhargava v. Bhawani
Shanker Bhargava and another(2) also. The point has been
considered and answered as follows in Wigmore on Evidence,
Volume IV, 1048 (at page 3),--
1