https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370022 Contemporaneous payment records, a joint bank account, related correspondence, and a letter expressing intent to transfer the property established that the suit property was bought with the mother-in-law's funds and held for family benefit. On that basis, the daughter-in-law was treated as holding the property in a fiduciary capacity within Section 4(3)(b) of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, so the benami bar did not apply. The limitation challenge was also rejected because the cause of action arose only when the rival branch challenged title and the later conveyance deed created a fresh dispute. Possession relief was refused, as settled occupation by both branches and unresolved testamentary claims could not be adjudicated on the record. en-us Fri, 02 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Dec 2019 18:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370022 Contemporaneous payment records, a joint bank account, related correspondence, and a letter expressing intent to transfer the property established that the suit property was bought with the mother-in-law's funds and held for family benefit. On that basis, the daughter-in-law was treated as holding the property in a fiduciary capacity within Section 4(3)(b) of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, so the benami bar did not apply. The limitation challenge was also rejected because the cause of action arose only when the rival branch challenged title and the later conveyance deed created a fresh dispute. Possession relief was refused, as settled occupation by both branches and unresolved testamentary claims could not be adjudicated on the record. Case-Laws Benami Property Fri, 02 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370022