TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the suit property was proved to be a benami purchase by Sabapathy Iyer, despite the sale deed standing in the name of Swarnalakshmi Ammal; and (ii) how the shares in the joint family property were to be worked out in view of the statutory amendment to the law of succession.
Issue (i): Whether the suit property was proved to be a benami purchase by Sabapathy Iyer, despite the sale deed standing in the name of Swarnalakshmi Ammal.
Analysis: The title deed stood in the name of Swarnalakshmi Ammal, and the burden to establish a benami purchase remained throughout on the defendants who asserted it. The Court held that this burden was not discharged. The subsequent dealings with the property, including execution of later documents and the recitals therein, supported the view that the property was treated as joint family property. The statutory presumption under Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 also operated against the plea of benami purchase.
Conclusion: The plea that the suit property was benami in the hands of Sabapathy Iyer was not proved.
Issue (ii): How the shares in the joint family property were to be worked out in view of the statutory amendment to the law of succession.
Analysis: Since the property was treated as joint family property, Sabapathy Iyer had only a notional share. In the light of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, daughters were also entitled to equal coparcenary rights. The Will in favour of defendants 2 to 4 was found to have been duly proved, and Sabapathy Iyer's share alone could devolve under it. On that basis, the respective shares of the parties were recomputed.
Conclusion: The plaintiffs were held entitled to a decree for partition on the revised shares worked out by the Court, while defendants 2 to 4 were entitled to Sabapathy Iyer's share under the proved Will.
Final Conclusion: The decree of the courts below was interfered with on the question of title, and the partition claim succeeded on a revised computation of shares.
Ratio Decidendi: When title stands in the name of one person, the plea of benami must be proved by the person asserting it, and the statutory presumption under the Benami law governs purchases in the name of a wife; once joint family character is found, succession shares must be determined according to the amended Hindu succession law and any duly proved Will.
TaxTMI 
