https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297937 The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners of the suit property, inheriting the rights from Vassudev Govekar. The plaintiffs were deemed to be in possession through occasional visits, with the defendants' construction considered trespass. The suit was held maintainable without a separate claim for possession, as the relief sought for demolishing the illegal construction was seen as a possession-related remedy. The application of the Benami Act was upheld, and the defendants' appeal was dismissed. However, the Court ordered the plaintiffs to compensate the defendants for the cost of construction instead of demolishing it, ensuring fairness and complete justice. en-us Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Oct 2021 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297937 The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners of the suit property, inheriting the rights from Vassudev Govekar. The plaintiffs were deemed to be in possession through occasional visits, with the defendants' construction considered trespass. The suit was held maintainable without a separate claim for possession, as the relief sought for demolishing the illegal construction was seen as a possession-related remedy. The application of the Benami Act was upheld, and the defendants' appeal was dismissed. However, the Court ordered the plaintiffs to compensate the defendants for the cost of construction instead of demolishing it, ensuring fairness and complete justice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297937