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>Court Confirms Plaintiff's Title to Properties, Rejects Benami Claim</h1> <h3>First Income-Tax Officer, City Circle V, Madras-34 Versus MR Dhanalakshmi Ammal And Others</h3> First Income-Tax Officer, City Circle V, Madras-34 Versus MR Dhanalakshmi Ammal And Others - [1978] 112 ITR 413, 1978 CTR 197 Issues Involved:1. Whether the plaintiff has got title to the suit propertyRs.2. Whether the third defendant is the owner of the suit propertyRs.3. Whether the court fee paid is not correctRs.4. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainableRs.5. Whether the suit properties are not liable to be attached for the income-tax dues by the third defendantRs.6. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitledRs.Summary of the Judgment:Issue 1: Whether the plaintiff has got title to the suit propertyRs.The plaintiff claimed to be the absolute owner of the suit properties by virtue of her purchases made under various sale deeds (exhibits A-3 to A-10) from 1961 to 1965. She provided evidence of possession and payment of kist, electricity charges, and other receipts. The court found that the plaintiff has got title to the suit properties based on the oral and documentary evidence presented.Issue 2: Whether the third defendant is the owner of the suit propertyRs.The first defendant contended that the properties were purchased by the third defendant benami in the name of the plaintiff. However, the court held that the first defendant failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the benami nature of the transactions. The court concluded that the third defendant is not the owner of the properties and the plaintiff is the real owner.Issue 3: Whether the court fee paid is not correctRs.The court found the court fee paid by the plaintiff to be correct, and this issue was resolved in favor of the plaintiff.Issue 4: Whether the suit as framed is not maintainableRs.The court held that the suit as framed is maintainable, and this issue was resolved in favor of the plaintiff.Issue 5: Whether the suit properties are not liable to be attached for the income-tax dues by the third defendantRs.The court found that the suit properties are not liable to be attached for the income-tax arrears due by the third defendant. The plaintiff's title and possession were established, and the properties were not considered benami.Issue 6: To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitledRs.The court decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff, confirming her title to the suit properties and declaring that they are not liable to be attached for the income-tax dues of the third defendant.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed without costs, and the judgment of the lower court was confirmed, establishing the plaintiff's title to the suit properties and rejecting the claim that the properties were held benami for the third defendant.
TaxTMI 