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>Property not benami, plaintiff's claim denied. Suit maintainable with proper valuation. Plaintiff estopped, case dismissed. Decree for first defendant.</h1> <h3>D. Damodaran Versus D. Leelavathi Ammal and Ors.</h3> D. Damodaran Versus D. Leelavathi Ammal and Ors. - AIR 1975 Mad 278 Issues Involved:1. Whether the suit property was purchased in the name of the first defendant benami for the benefit of the plaintiffRs.2. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiffRs.3. Whether the suit has been properly valued and proper court-fee paid thereonRs.4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of a half share as claimed in the plaintRs.5. Whether the plaintiff was in joint possession of any portion of the suit property at any time as alleged in the plaintRs.6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming any share in the suit property for any of the reasons alleged by the first defendantRs.7. To what reliefRs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue No. 1: Whether the suit property was purchased in the name of the first defendant benami for the benefit of the plaintiffRs.The court examined the oral evidence of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The plaintiff claimed that he paid for the property and managed the finances, while the first defendant argued that she independently financed the purchase through her firewood business and rental income. The court applied the tests laid down in the case of Jayadayal Peddar v. Bibi Hazra, focusing on the source of the purchase money, possession, motive, relationship, custody of title deeds, and conduct. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove his monetary contribution and found the first defendant's testimony credible. Thus, the court held that the property was not purchased benami for the plaintiff's benefit.Issue No. 2: Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiffRs.The court noted that there was a specific prayer for declaration regarding the half share in the suit property. Therefore, the suit as framed was deemed maintainable. This issue was answered in favor of the plaintiff.Issue No. 3: Whether the suit has been properly valued and proper court-fee paid thereonRs.No arguments were advanced on this issue. The court found that the suit was properly valued with reference to half the share of the suit property and that the court-fee paid was correct. This issue was resolved in favor of the plaintiff.Issue No. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of a half share as claimed in the plaintRs.Given the finding under Issue No. 1 that the property was not purchased benami for the plaintiff's benefit, the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to partition and separate possession of any share in the suit property. This issue was answered against the plaintiff.Issue No. 5: Whether the plaintiff was in joint possession of any portion of the suit property at any time as alleged in the plaintRs.The court found no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim of joint possession of the suit property at any time. This issue was resolved against the plaintiff.Issue No. 6: Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming any share in the suit property for any of the reasons alleged by the first defendantRs.The court noted that the plaintiff had attested to mortgages executed by the first defendant, which indicated his awareness and implied consent. This created an estoppel against the plaintiff from claiming any share in the suit property. This issue was decided against the plaintiff.Issue No. 7: To what reliefRs.The court dismissed C.S. No. 6 of 1973, filed by the plaintiff, and decreed in favor of the first defendant in C.S. No. 157 of 1973, granting the injunction prayed for by the first defendant. Considering the relationship between the parties as husband and wife, the court directed each party to bear their own costs.Conclusion:C.S. No. 6 of 1973 was dismissed, and C.S. No. 157 of 1973 was decreed in favor of the first defendant, with each party bearing their own costs.
TaxTMI 