It is, therefore, necessary to understand whether the evidence is sufficient to prove that the appellant was holding property Benami. The appellant's husband is not party to the suit and, therefore, he has not claimed himself to be the real owner of the property. To my mind and in terms of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act, the question, whether the property held Benami was for the benefit of real owner, can only be answered when the real owner either files a suit or raises a defence on this count. It is so because the intention behind the Benami transaction is known to the person in whose name the property has been purchased or the person who has purchased the property in the name of other. A third party has no locus to plead on behalf of the real owner that it is he (real owner), who was to be benefited by the Benami transaction, unless third party otherwise proves. {Para 12}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Second Appeal No. 616/2007
Decided On: 26.04.2024
Badrunisa Vs. Sabdar Khan and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Anil L. Pansare, J.
Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:4870, MANU/MH/2715/2024.
Read full judgment here: Click here.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment