<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (6) TMI 791 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298921</link>
    <description>Registered contemporaneous documents and surrounding circumstances can establish joint ownership even where title stands in one brother&#039;s name; on the facts, both brothers were held to have equal rights in the half share, and the elder brother was treated as holding it in a fiduciary capacity. The fiduciary holding brought the transaction outside the benami prohibition. The partition suit was not barred by limitation because the joint status continued and a later notice created a fresh cause of action. A separate declaration of title was unnecessary, and the plea of ouster failed because exclusive hostile possession was not proved. The dismissal was set aside and a preliminary decree for partition was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Nov 2021 08:45:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 791 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298921</link>
      <description>Registered contemporaneous documents and surrounding circumstances can establish joint ownership even where title stands in one brother&#039;s name; on the facts, both brothers were held to have equal rights in the half share, and the elder brother was treated as holding it in a fiduciary capacity. The fiduciary holding brought the transaction outside the benami prohibition. The partition suit was not barred by limitation because the joint status continued and a later notice created a fresh cause of action. A separate declaration of title was unnecessary, and the plea of ouster failed because exclusive hostile possession was not proved. The dismissal was set aside and a preliminary decree for partition was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298921</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>