TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 validates sale deed, recognizes Plaintiff's ownership, deems Defendant Benamidar. Benami Act inapplicable, coercion and fraud claims dismissed.</h1> The Court upheld the validity of the sale deed executed by the Defendant, transferring title to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's continuous possession and ... Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Single Judge while concurring with the findings of the Trial Court held that under Section 3 (2) of the said Act there was no prohibition to the property being purchased in the name of the ostensible owner's wife and unmarried daughter - Appellants herein are the successors-in-interest of the original Defendant - Single Judge discussed the evidence led and disbelieved the case of the Defendant that the registered sale deed was vitiated by fraud and coercion - HELD THAT:- This Court is unable to come a conclusion different from that reached by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court on any of the above issues, in which concurrent findings have been rendered against the Appellants, both by the Trial court as well as the learned Single Judge. Indeed, the concept of unilateral cancellation of a sale deed, which has been duly registered, is unheard of. Even otherwise, it lacks legal sanctity. The only way to prove that a sale deed was not duly executed would be by leading evidence in the civil court. Despite being provided with sufficient opportunity, the Appellants- Defendants have been unable to establish their case that the registered sale deed in question had been executed through undue influence or coercion.The Court is unable to find any error committed by the learned Single Judge and therefore declines to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Issues involved:- Validity of sale deed executed by Defendant- Claim of possession and title by Plaintiff- Applicability of Benami Transactions Act- Allegations of coercion and fraud in execution of sale deedAnalysis:1. Validity of sale deed executed by Defendant:The case revolved around a property dispute where the Plaintiff claimed ownership based on a sale deed executed by the Defendant. The Trial Court found that the sale deed was voluntarily executed by the Defendant without coercion or misrepresentation. It was held that the sale deed was valid and not nominal, transferring the title to the Plaintiff. The Defendant's plea of adverse possession was rejected as she failed to prove it. The registered sale deed contained detailed particulars of the land, making the suit maintainable.2. Claim of possession and title by Plaintiff:The Plaintiff asserted continuous possession and ownership of the property since the execution of the sale deed. The Trial Court concluded that the Defendant was a mere Benamidar, and the real purchaser was the Plaintiff's husband. The Plaintiff's claim was upheld based on the valid sale deed and the lack of evidence supporting the Defendant's adverse possession claim.3. Applicability of Benami Transactions Act:The judgment addressed the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It was clarified that there was no prohibition under the Act for property being purchased in the name of the ostensible owner's wife and unmarried daughter, supporting the Plaintiff's case.4. Allegations of coercion and fraud in execution of sale deed:The Defendant alleged coercion by her husband in executing the sale deed. However, the Trial Court and the Single Judge disbelieved this claim due to lack of evidence. The judgment cited legal precedents to establish that the sale deed was not vitiated by fraud or coercion, and the Defendant's plea was rejected.5. Final Judgment:After thorough consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, the Court dismissed the appeal by the Defendants. The Court found no error in the judgments of the Trial Court and the Single Judge. The concept of unilaterally canceling a registered sale deed was deemed legally unsound, and the Defendants failed to prove undue influence or coercion in the execution of the sale deed. The interim stay order was vacated, and the appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
