<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1973 (10) TMI 55 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181466</link>
    <description>A benami claim requires the party asserting it to prove, by clear evidence and surrounding circumstances, that the apparent purchaser is not the real owner. Relevant factors include the source of purchase money, possession after purchase, motive, relationship, custody of title deeds, and subsequent conduct. On the facts, the evidence did not show that the husband financed the purchase, and his financial position did not support that inference. Documentary and oral material, including an earlier pre-litigation recital, supported the wife&#039;s independent means and ownership. The husband&#039;s role in negotiations and possession of the deed were explained by the wife&#039;s pardanishin status and did not establish benami.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:26:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (10) TMI 55 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181466</link>
      <description>A benami claim requires the party asserting it to prove, by clear evidence and surrounding circumstances, that the apparent purchaser is not the real owner. Relevant factors include the source of purchase money, possession after purchase, motive, relationship, custody of title deeds, and subsequent conduct. On the facts, the evidence did not show that the husband financed the purchase, and his financial position did not support that inference. Documentary and oral material, including an earlier pre-litigation recital, supported the wife&#039;s independent means and ownership. The husband&#039;s role in negotiations and possession of the deed were explained by the wife&#039;s pardanishin status and did not establish benami.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>