1996 (4) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sale deed, dated December 16, 1963. It was claimed to be the property of the plaintiff even though the defendant was shown in the document as the vendee. The suit was filed in 1981 for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and also for an injunction for restraining the defendant from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. The trial court while dismissing the suit held that the plaintiff failed to prove his title that he was the real owner of the property and that the plaintiff failed to establish that he was in possession of it on the date of suit. The High Court concurred with the finding of the trial court regarding title but did not proceed to consider the other issue regarding possession. However, the High Court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the legal position which emerged by virtue of the decision of this court in Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Bihari Khare [1989] 177 ITR 97 to the effect that section 4(1) of the said Act can apply to suits filed even prior to the coming into force of the said Act stood overruled by the decision of a larger Bench of this court in R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan [1995] 213 ITR 340. As the provisions of the Act have been held to be prospective only the sale deed in this case being of the year, 1963, remains unaffected by the said Act. The question whether a particular sale is benami or not is largely one of fact. Though there is no formula or acid test uniformly applicable it is well nigh settled that the question depends predominan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ansaction was a benamidar. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, contended that exhibit-79 not only shows that there were similar dealings between the parties even earlier but it has a perceptible impact on the crucial question relating to the transaction involved in exhibit-66 sale deed. But exhibit-79, far from helping the appellants, would help the respondents because the document contained a clear recital that the land would remain with the defendant as security for the amount advanced by him and when the plaintiff paid back all the amounts outstanding from him, the defendant would give back the property and execute a registered deed for that purpose. If this was the safeguard adopted by the plaintiff relating to another sal....