Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.77 seconds)Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased) Through His ... vs Mst. Bibi Hazra And Ors on 19 October, 1973
(5) the custody of the title deeds after the sale; and
(6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale. (Jaydayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazral.
Section 3 in The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Samittri Devi & Anr vs Sampuran Singh & Anr on 21 January, 2011
11. The sale transaction involved in this matter marked as Ex.A1/B1 is dated 04.09.1987. The plaintiff claims that the suit property purchased under the said sale transaction belongs to him absolutely. Per contra, the first defendant claims that under the said transaction, it is he, who had purchased the suit property benami in the name of the plaintiff. It is contended by the plaintiff's counsel that the first defendant is barred in projecting the plea of benami after the advent of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, as per Sections 3 & 4 of the said Act and therefore, the first appellate Court had erred in non-suiting the plaintiff and upholding the benami plea of the defendants and the same requires to be set aside. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is found to have come into force with effect from 05.09.1988 and the transaction involved in this matter is dated 04.09.1987. Therefore, it is found that prior to the coming into the force of The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the sale transaction involved in this matter had occurred and in such view of the matter, it is seen that the provisions of The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, would not apply to such a transaction and this could be seen from the decisions reported in (1995) 2 SCC 630 (R.Rajagopal Reddy (Dead) by LRS. V. Padmini Chandrasekharan (Dead) by LRS.), 2011 SAR (Civil) 213 (Samittri Devi V. Sampuran Singh), (2005) 6 SCC 441 (G. Mahalingappa V. G.M.Savitha) and 2017 (1) CTC 374 (Maria Francis (Died) V. M.Vardhese @ Maria Varghese).
George Thomas vs Smt. Srividya And The Tax Recovery ... on 4 March, 2003
14. The above indicia are not exhaustive and their efficacy varies according to the facts of each case. Nevertheless, the source from where the purchase money came and the motive why the property was purchased benami are by far the most important tests for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in reality for the benefit of another.
In this connection, a useful reference may be made to the decisions reported in 2003 (1) CTC 705 (George Thomas V. Smt.Srividya) and (2004) 7 SCC (Valliammal (D) By Lrs. V. Subramaniam).
Heirs Of Vrajlal J. Ganatra vs Hairs Of Parshottam S. Shah on 30 April, 1996
13.This Court in a number of judgments has held that it is well established that burden of proving that a particular sale is benami lies on the person who alleges the transaction to be a benami. The essence of a benami transaction is the intention of the party or parties concerned and often, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof. Refer to Jaydayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazra, Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of M.P., Thakur Bhim Singh v. Thakur Kan Singh, Pratap Singh v. Sarojini Devi and Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra v. Heirs of Parshottam S.Shah. It has been held in the judgments referred to above that the question whether a particular sale is a benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining the question, no absolute formulas or acid test, uniformly applicable in all situations can be laid. After saying so, this Court spelt out the following six circumstances, which can be taken as a guide to determine the nature of the transaction:
G.Mahalingappa vs G.M. Savitha on 9 August, 2005
11. The sale transaction involved in this matter marked as Ex.A1/B1 is dated 04.09.1987. The plaintiff claims that the suit property purchased under the said sale transaction belongs to him absolutely. Per contra, the first defendant claims that under the said transaction, it is he, who had purchased the suit property benami in the name of the plaintiff. It is contended by the plaintiff's counsel that the first defendant is barred in projecting the plea of benami after the advent of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, as per Sections 3 & 4 of the said Act and therefore, the first appellate Court had erred in non-suiting the plaintiff and upholding the benami plea of the defendants and the same requires to be set aside. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is found to have come into force with effect from 05.09.1988 and the transaction involved in this matter is dated 04.09.1987. Therefore, it is found that prior to the coming into the force of The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the sale transaction involved in this matter had occurred and in such view of the matter, it is seen that the provisions of The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, would not apply to such a transaction and this could be seen from the decisions reported in (1995) 2 SCC 630 (R.Rajagopal Reddy (Dead) by LRS. V. Padmini Chandrasekharan (Dead) by LRS.), 2011 SAR (Civil) 213 (Samittri Devi V. Sampuran Singh), (2005) 6 SCC 441 (G. Mahalingappa V. G.M.Savitha) and 2017 (1) CTC 374 (Maria Francis (Died) V. M.Vardhese @ Maria Varghese).
Thakur Bhim Singh (Dead) By Lrs And Anr. vs Thakur Kan Singh on 21 December, 1979
13.This Court in a number of judgments has held that it is well established that burden of proving that a particular sale is benami lies on the person who alleges the transaction to be a benami. The essence of a benami transaction is the intention of the party or parties concerned and often, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof. Refer to Jaydayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazra, Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of M.P., Thakur Bhim Singh v. Thakur Kan Singh, Pratap Singh v. Sarojini Devi and Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra v. Heirs of Parshottam S.Shah. It has been held in the judgments referred to above that the question whether a particular sale is a benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining the question, no absolute formulas or acid test, uniformly applicable in all situations can be laid. After saying so, this Court spelt out the following six circumstances, which can be taken as a guide to determine the nature of the transaction:
Pratap Singh vs Sarojini Devi on 17 August, 1993
13.This Court in a number of judgments has held that it is well established that burden of proving that a particular sale is benami lies on the person who alleges the transaction to be a benami. The essence of a benami transaction is the intention of the party or parties concerned and often, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof. Refer to Jaydayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazra, Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of M.P., Thakur Bhim Singh v. Thakur Kan Singh, Pratap Singh v. Sarojini Devi and Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra v. Heirs of Parshottam S.Shah. It has been held in the judgments referred to above that the question whether a particular sale is a benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining the question, no absolute formulas or acid test, uniformly applicable in all situations can be laid. After saying so, this Court spelt out the following six circumstances, which can be taken as a guide to determine the nature of the transaction: