https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439689 The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to a declaration of ownership or partition by metes and bounds due to lack of evidence supporting an oral partnership agreement. The suit was also barred under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, as the property was deemed a benami transaction. The court rejected claims of a joint venture development agreement due to insufficient evidence. Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief, and the suit was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants. en-us Fri, 09 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Jun 2023 09:35:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439689 The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to a declaration of ownership or partition by metes and bounds due to lack of evidence supporting an oral partnership agreement. The suit was also barred under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, as the property was deemed a benami transaction. The court rejected claims of a joint venture development agreement due to insufficient evidence. Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief, and the suit was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants. Case-Laws Benami Property Fri, 09 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439689