https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293856 The Supreme Court held that the attachment of the property in a recovery proceeding against Defendant No. 5 was invalid as the State failed to prove ownership or a benami transaction. The plaintiff's evidence, including a registered sale deed and financial explanations, established her ownership. The High Court erred in dismissing the suit based on misconstrued evidence. The burden of proof was on the State, and without evidence of a benami transaction, the plaintiff's ownership was upheld. The appeal was allowed, the High Court decision was set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was decreed with costs awarded to the appellant. en-us Fri, 08 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Mar 2021 17:37:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293856 The Supreme Court held that the attachment of the property in a recovery proceeding against Defendant No. 5 was invalid as the State failed to prove ownership or a benami transaction. The plaintiff's evidence, including a registered sale deed and financial explanations, established her ownership. The High Court erred in dismissing the suit based on misconstrued evidence. The burden of proof was on the State, and without evidence of a benami transaction, the plaintiff's ownership was upheld. The appeal was allowed, the High Court decision was set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was decreed with costs awarded to the appellant. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293856