https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278279 A claim that property standing in another's name was really purchased with the plaintiff's money did not, by itself, attract the fiduciary exception under Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988; the Court treated the suit as barred because the exception applies only to a true fiduciary relationship recognised by the statute, not to a benami arrangement. The Court also held that the claim for declaration was time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the claim for possession was barred under Article 65, with adverse possession running for far beyond twelve years. The dismissal of the suit was affirmed. en-us Mon, 07 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Dec 2019 18:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278279 A claim that property standing in another's name was really purchased with the plaintiff's money did not, by itself, attract the fiduciary exception under Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988; the Court treated the suit as barred because the exception applies only to a true fiduciary relationship recognised by the statute, not to a benami arrangement. The Court also held that the claim for declaration was time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the claim for possession was barred under Article 65, with adverse possession running for far beyond twelve years. The dismissal of the suit was affirmed. Case-Laws Benami Property Mon, 07 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278279