https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24140 The court held that the appellant's suit for specific performance based on an oral contract of sale was barred under the Benami Transactions Ordinance, as the transaction was not deemed benami. The court emphasized the need to establish the real owner of the property and placed the burden of proof on the appellant to show the transaction's benami nature. The court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a refund of earnest money, ruling that the appellant could not maintain the specific performance suit under the Ordinance. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, and determining the real owner of the property was deemed necessary before seeking such relief. en-us Wed, 29 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:41:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24140 The court held that the appellant's suit for specific performance based on an oral contract of sale was barred under the Benami Transactions Ordinance, as the transaction was not deemed benami. The court emphasized the need to establish the real owner of the property and placed the burden of proof on the appellant to show the transaction's benami nature. The court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a refund of earnest money, ruling that the appellant could not maintain the specific performance suit under the Ordinance. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, and determining the real owner of the property was deemed necessary before seeking such relief. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24140