https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298807 The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, ruling in favor of the respondent as the rightful owner of properties purchased by the mother. It emphasized the need for concrete evidence to prove benami transactions and clarified that the burden of proof rests on the party asserting such claims. The court highlighted that the burden does not shift based on the origin of consideration and rejected the argument that it shifts to prove beneficial ownership. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the respondent's ownership based on the evidence presented. en-us Wed, 04 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Nov 2021 16:53:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298807 The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, ruling in favor of the respondent as the rightful owner of properties purchased by the mother. It emphasized the need for concrete evidence to prove benami transactions and clarified that the burden of proof rests on the party asserting such claims. The court highlighted that the burden does not shift based on the origin of consideration and rejected the argument that it shifts to prove beneficial ownership. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the respondent's ownership based on the evidence presented. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298807