https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308912 A plaint alleging that property stood in defendants' names while the consideration came from the plaintiff was held to attract the statutory bar on benami claims unless it specifically pleaded facts bringing the case within a recognised exception. The HUF exception failed because the plaint did not set out material particulars showing a valid Hindu Undivided Family, coparcenary status, or that the property was held for the benefit of coparceners. The fiduciary or trustee exception also failed because there was no pleading that the defendants held the property in such a capacity. Bare assertions of joint family ownership were insufficient, so rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) was upheld. en-us Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Aug 2023 08:20:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308912 A plaint alleging that property stood in defendants' names while the consideration came from the plaintiff was held to attract the statutory bar on benami claims unless it specifically pleaded facts bringing the case within a recognised exception. The HUF exception failed because the plaint did not set out material particulars showing a valid Hindu Undivided Family, coparcenary status, or that the property was held for the benefit of coparceners. The fiduciary or trustee exception also failed because there was no pleading that the defendants held the property in such a capacity. Bare assertions of joint family ownership were insufficient, so rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) was upheld. Case-Laws Benami Property Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308912