https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459557 A benami conveyance intended to defeat a proposed creditor's claim did not prevent the transferor from recovering possession where the fraudulent purpose was never carried out and no creditor was actually defrauded. The instrument was treated as inoperative, so the defendant could not retain title on the basis of the failed fraud. On limitation, the transferor was not first required to seek cancellation of the deed; Article 144, not Article 91, governed the suit for possession, and the claim was within time. The note therefore states that recovery of possession was available and the decree for the plaintiff was affirmed. en-us Thu, 19 Mar 1908 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Dec 2024 13:18:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459557 A benami conveyance intended to defeat a proposed creditor's claim did not prevent the transferor from recovering possession where the fraudulent purpose was never carried out and no creditor was actually defrauded. The instrument was treated as inoperative, so the defendant could not retain title on the basis of the failed fraud. On limitation, the transferor was not first required to seek cancellation of the deed; Article 144, not Article 91, governed the suit for possession, and the claim was within time. The note therefore states that recovery of possession was available and the decree for the plaintiff was affirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Mar 1908 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459557