https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422003 The appeal challenging a preliminary decree in a partition suit was dismissed as the court found insufficient evidence to establish the counter-claimant's exclusive ownership over the property. The court emphasized the burden of proof on the appellants to demonstrate the transaction as benami, which was not met in this case. Referring to the Binapani Paul judgment guidelines, the court concluded that the circumstances outlined were not proven by the plaintiff. The lower court's decision in Title Suit No.45 of 2013 was upheld, emphasizing the importance of meeting the burden of proof in cases involving benami transactions. en-us Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 May 2022 10:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422003 The appeal challenging a preliminary decree in a partition suit was dismissed as the court found insufficient evidence to establish the counter-claimant's exclusive ownership over the property. The court emphasized the burden of proof on the appellants to demonstrate the transaction as benami, which was not met in this case. Referring to the Binapani Paul judgment guidelines, the court concluded that the circumstances outlined were not proven by the plaintiff. The lower court's decision in Title Suit No.45 of 2013 was upheld, emphasizing the importance of meeting the burden of proof in cases involving benami transactions. Case-Laws Benami Property Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422003