https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288756 A benami claim failed because the plaintiff could not prove that his funds purchased the property or supported the construction; the first defendant's evidence of purchase from her own business and rental income was accepted. The plaintiff's suit for declaration, partition and separate possession was nevertheless maintainable, and the court-fee was properly valued, but he could not obtain substantive relief once title was not established. His claim was also defeated by lack of possession and by estoppel arising from his attestation of mortgages executed by the first defendant. The connected injunction claim succeeded because the first defendant was shown to be in possession through tenants and entitled to protection. en-us Thu, 18 Jul 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Jun 2020 11:37:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288756 A benami claim failed because the plaintiff could not prove that his funds purchased the property or supported the construction; the first defendant's evidence of purchase from her own business and rental income was accepted. The plaintiff's suit for declaration, partition and separate possession was nevertheless maintainable, and the court-fee was properly valued, but he could not obtain substantive relief once title was not established. His claim was also defeated by lack of possession and by estoppel arising from his attestation of mortgages executed by the first defendant. The connected injunction claim succeeded because the first defendant was shown to be in possession through tenants and entitled to protection. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Jul 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288756