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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the properties standing in the name of the wife were proved to be the self-acquisition of the husband and not hit by the statutory presumption against benami; (ii) whether the property purchased in the name of the son and the later purchase in the name of the daughter-in-law were joint family properties acquired from ancestral nucleus; (iii) whether the will dated 05.06.1995 was proved to be true and valid.
Issue (i): Whether the properties standing in the name of the wife were proved to be the self-acquisition of the husband and not hit by the statutory presumption against benami.
Analysis: The sale deed for Items 1 to 3 contained an endorsement showing that consideration was paid by the husband. The income-tax returns and surrounding circumstances showed that the husband treated those properties as his own. The evidence was sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption and the scant ancestral property shown on record was not proved to have yielded the necessary surplus for the purchase.
Conclusion: The properties in Items 1 to 3 were held to belong to the husband as his self-acquisition, and the benami plea failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the property purchased in the name of the son and the later purchase in the name of the daughter-in-law were joint family properties acquired from ancestral nucleus.
Analysis: For the purchase in the name of the son, the only nucleus shown was a house property from which no sufficient surplus was proved. The purchaser was only a junior member at the relevant time, and no cogent evidence established acquisition from joint family funds. As to the later purchase in the name of the daughter-in-law, it was made after the benami law came into force and no fiduciary relationship or other exception was proved.
Conclusion: Item 4 was not proved to be joint family property, while Item 6 was held to be the absolute property of the daughter-in-law.
Issue (iii): Whether the will dated 05.06.1995 was proved to be true and valid.
Analysis: The propounder examined an attesting witness, but the witness had a close working connection with the beneficiary side. The signatures attributed to the testatrix showed marked differences, including discrepancies between the signatures in the body of the document and those before the Registrar. The exclusion of several natural heirs without explanation was also treated as a suspicious circumstance not satisfactorily dispelled.
Conclusion: The will was not proved in accordance with law and was held not to be valid and binding on the other heirs.
Final Conclusion: The High Court partly interfered with the trial court's decree, dismissed the appeal relating to the will suit, and modified the partition decree by recognising the plaintiff's share only in the properties found to be joint family properties or jointly devolving after rejection of the will.
Ratio Decidendi: A benami presumption can be displaced by documentary and surrounding evidence showing that the ostensible ownership was only nominal, but a will propounded in the face of unexplained exclusion of natural heirs and unexplained signature discrepancies must be proved free from suspicious circumstances before it can be acted upon.
TaxTMI 
