https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795325 Property held in a spouse's name is described as excluded from the statutory definition of a benami transaction, allowing a claim that the other spouse was the exclusive owner. The notes explain that a beneficiary who accepts benefits under a will cannot assert an inconsistent proprietary claim, applying the doctrine of election; the legal representative cannot claim more than the beneficiary could have claimed. A permission to maintain an office does not create a life interest without clear dispositive language. Where occupation remains permissive, title is undisputed, and permission is terminated, vacant possession may be sought through mandatory injunction despite its substantive effect of recovering possession. en-us Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:32:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795325 Property held in a spouse's name is described as excluded from the statutory definition of a benami transaction, allowing a claim that the other spouse was the exclusive owner. The notes explain that a beneficiary who accepts benefits under a will cannot assert an inconsistent proprietary claim, applying the doctrine of election; the legal representative cannot claim more than the beneficiary could have claimed. A permission to maintain an office does not create a life interest without clear dispositive language. Where occupation remains permissive, title is undisputed, and permission is terminated, vacant possession may be sought through mandatory injunction despite its substantive effect of recovering possession. Case-Laws Benami Property Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795325