https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297476 A plaint alleging that property was bought in another's name from the real owner's self-acquired funds was treated as falling outside the Section 4(3) exceptions, because it did not plead coparcenary ownership or any fiduciary or trustee relationship. The article states that joint residence, family ties, or long possession were insufficient to avoid the statutory bar, and the claim for title and partition was therefore not maintainable. It also notes that, once no enforceable right in the property was shown, prior occupation and the presence of belongings could not justify restoration of possession or injunctive protection; at most, a dispossessed licensee may seek compensation. en-us Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Sep 2021 17:09:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297476 A plaint alleging that property was bought in another's name from the real owner's self-acquired funds was treated as falling outside the Section 4(3) exceptions, because it did not plead coparcenary ownership or any fiduciary or trustee relationship. The article states that joint residence, family ties, or long possession were insufficient to avoid the statutory bar, and the claim for title and partition was therefore not maintainable. It also notes that, once no enforceable right in the property was shown, prior occupation and the presence of belongings could not justify restoration of possession or injunctive protection; at most, a dispossessed licensee may seek compensation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297476