TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules in favor of Bharat Singh, orders delivery of suit house to plaintiff</h1> <h3>BHIM SINGH (DEAD) LRS. Versus KAN SINGH</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the consideration for the house was paid by Bharat Singh out of his own funds, determining that the ... - Issues Involved:1. Ownership of the suit house.2. Benami transaction claim.3. Entitlement to possession and mesne profits.Detailed Analysis:1. Ownership of the Suit House:The principal issue was the ownership of the suit house. The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on a patta dated July 12, 1940, issued in their names. The defendant contended that he was the exclusive owner, asserting that the house was acquired jointly by him and Bharat Singh out of their joint funds. The trial court held that Bharat Singh secured the house for the plaintiffs with their money, while the High Court found that Bharat Singh purchased the house with his own money in the plaintiffs' names without intending to confer any beneficial interest on them. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the consideration for the house was paid by Bharat Singh out of his own funds.2. Benami Transaction Claim:The defendant claimed the transaction was benami, asserting that the plaintiffs were holding the property as benamidars for Bharat Singh. The Supreme Court analyzed the principles governing benami transactions, noting that the burden of proof lies on the person asserting the transaction to be benami. The Court considered the surrounding circumstances, relationship of the parties, and the conduct of Bharat Singh. It found that Bharat Singh intended to make plaintiff No. 2 the owner of the house, supported by declarations made by Bharat Singh and the fact that the original patta was handed over to plaintiff No. 2. The Court concluded that the transaction was not benami and Bharat Singh intended to constitute plaintiff No. 2 as the absolute owner.3. Entitlement to Possession and Mesne Profits:The trial court decreed possession of the house in favor of the plaintiffs and directed the defendant to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 50 per month from September 20, 1956, until possession was restored. The High Court modified this decree, granting joint possession to plaintiff No. 1. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decree, reinstating the trial court's direction for possession to plaintiff No. 2 and ordered the defendant to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 50 per month from September 20, 1956, till the date of delivery of possession. The Court also directed an enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine future mesne profits.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 626 of 1971, granting possession of the suit house to plaintiff No. 2 and ordering the defendant to pay mesne profits. Civil Appeal No. 629 of 1971 was dismissed without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
