https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275757 A registered assignment was upheld as a genuine and operative transfer, not a benami or sham transaction, because the plaintiff failed to prove that the apparent bargain was unreal. The Court treated the burden as lying on the party alleging sham, and relied on the surrounding circumstances, including the parties' relationship, the prior draft gift deed, the plaintiff's failure to testify, and supporting evidence for the defendant. It further held that the deed remained valid despite any inadequacy of consideration, since Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act does not void an agreement on that ground alone and no fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation, or uncertainty of subject matter was shown. en-us Fri, 25 Sep 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Oct 2018 18:11:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275757 A registered assignment was upheld as a genuine and operative transfer, not a benami or sham transaction, because the plaintiff failed to prove that the apparent bargain was unreal. The Court treated the burden as lying on the party alleging sham, and relied on the surrounding circumstances, including the parties' relationship, the prior draft gift deed, the plaintiff's failure to testify, and supporting evidence for the defendant. It further held that the deed remained valid despite any inadequacy of consideration, since Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act does not void an agreement on that ground alone and no fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation, or uncertainty of subject matter was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Sep 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275757