https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169784 Property claimed as belonging to a former ruling family was examined under the principle that benami ownership must be proved by cogent evidence, while documentary records and consistent official treatment carried greater weight than unsupported oral claims. The disputed properties, Sterling Castle and House No. 34, Alipur Road, were treated on the evidence as Nabha State property, not the personal property of Ripudaman Singh. The earlier Allahabad High Court ruling was found inapplicable because the facts and legal setting were different. The merger covenant preserved only property already established as private, and did not convert State property into private property. en-us Tue, 17 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 May 2015 16:48:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169784 Property claimed as belonging to a former ruling family was examined under the principle that benami ownership must be proved by cogent evidence, while documentary records and consistent official treatment carried greater weight than unsupported oral claims. The disputed properties, Sterling Castle and House No. 34, Alipur Road, were treated on the evidence as Nabha State property, not the personal property of Ripudaman Singh. The earlier Allahabad High Court ruling was found inapplicable because the facts and legal setting were different. The merger covenant preserved only property already established as private, and did not convert State property into private property. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169784