https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308848 The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the Gurgaon property, advising the Plaintiff to seek remedies in the appropriate jurisdiction. The claim of a Benami transaction for the Delhi property was rejected as the Plaintiff failed to prove it was not acquired for the mother's benefit. The request for partition of the Delhi property was denied, as it belonged solely to Defendant No. 2. Additionally, partition of shares and debentures was deemed unnecessary as they were now solely owned by Defendant No. 2. The applications for rejection of the plaint were granted, allowing the Plaintiff to pursue relief for the Gurgaon property elsewhere. en-us Thu, 07 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jul 2023 16:45:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308848 The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the Gurgaon property, advising the Plaintiff to seek remedies in the appropriate jurisdiction. The claim of a Benami transaction for the Delhi property was rejected as the Plaintiff failed to prove it was not acquired for the mother's benefit. The request for partition of the Delhi property was denied, as it belonged solely to Defendant No. 2. Additionally, partition of shares and debentures was deemed unnecessary as they were now solely owned by Defendant No. 2. The applications for rejection of the plaint were granted, allowing the Plaintiff to pursue relief for the Gurgaon property elsewhere. Case-Laws Benami Property Thu, 07 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308848