https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441089 Failure to prove ancestral joint family nucleus meant the suit property could not be treated as joint family property, and the courts treated the plaintiff's name in the sale deed as nominal while recognising defendant No. 2 as the real owner. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 did not retrospectively extinguish a defence arising from an earlier transaction, so the statutory bar under section 4 could not dislodge that defence. Because the property was not found to belong to a minor, section 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 did not apply to the sale. The dismissal of the suit was therefore left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 14 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Aug 2023 09:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441089 Failure to prove ancestral joint family nucleus meant the suit property could not be treated as joint family property, and the courts treated the plaintiff's name in the sale deed as nominal while recognising defendant No. 2 as the real owner. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 did not retrospectively extinguish a defence arising from an earlier transaction, so the statutory bar under section 4 could not dislodge that defence. Because the property was not found to belong to a minor, section 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 did not apply to the sale. The dismissal of the suit was therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws Benami Property Fri, 14 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441089