https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272681 Benami ownership was tested by the surrounding circumstances, including source of funds, custody of title deeds, possession, and subsequent conduct; on that evidence, the Kedila properties were not proved to be joint family purchases, so the benami claim failed. Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as a bar to recovery of property bought at a court auction in another's name where the real case was that the purchase was for the claimant or the joint family, so that claim also failed. As to the coffee estate, the sale deed and circumstances justified treating only one-half as joint family property, and the decree was modified to that extent. en-us Thu, 15 Jul 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 May 2018 15:04:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272681 Benami ownership was tested by the surrounding circumstances, including source of funds, custody of title deeds, possession, and subsequent conduct; on that evidence, the Kedila properties were not proved to be joint family purchases, so the benami claim failed. Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as a bar to recovery of property bought at a court auction in another's name where the real case was that the purchase was for the claimant or the joint family, so that claim also failed. As to the coffee estate, the sale deed and circumstances justified treating only one-half as joint family property, and the decree was modified to that extent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Jul 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272681