https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413723 Title to property standing in Swarnalakshmi Ammal's name could not be displaced as benami because the defendants failed to prove that Sabapathy Iyer was the real purchaser, and the statutory presumption under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act operated against that plea. The court also treated the property as joint family property, so Sabapathy Iyer had only a notional share. In computing succession, daughters were given equal coparcenary rights under the amended Hindu Succession Act, and the Will in favour of defendants 2 to 4 was accepted as duly proved, allowing only Sabapathy Iyer's share to pass under it. The partition claim succeeded on revised shares. en-us Mon, 05 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:23:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413723 Title to property standing in Swarnalakshmi Ammal's name could not be displaced as benami because the defendants failed to prove that Sabapathy Iyer was the real purchaser, and the statutory presumption under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act operated against that plea. The court also treated the property as joint family property, so Sabapathy Iyer had only a notional share. In computing succession, daughters were given equal coparcenary rights under the amended Hindu Succession Act, and the Will in favour of defendants 2 to 4 was accepted as duly proved, allowing only Sabapathy Iyer's share to pass under it. The partition claim succeeded on revised shares. Case-Laws Benami Property Mon, 05 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413723