Whether the widow of one brother can claim Benami joint ownership of the property if it is in the name of another brother?

Furthermore, it is essential to observe that the present appellant's claim also does not fall within the exception (iii) to Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 which reads to the effect as under:-

"2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(8) "benami property" means any property which is the subject matter of a benami transaction and also includes the proceeds from such property;

(9) "benami transaction" means,--

(A) a transaction or an arrangement--

(a) where a property is transferred to, or is held by, a person, and the consideration for such property has been provided, or paid by, another person; and

(b) the property is held for the immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect, of the person who has provided the consideration,

except when the property is held by--

(i) .

(ii) .

(iii) any person being an individual in the name of his spouse or in the name of any child of such individual and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid out of the known sources of the individual;

(iv) .",

as observed by this Court in Deepak Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. Shakuntala Devi (Supra), the benefit of the said provision also can only be considered to be in relation between the individual who has paid for the purchase of any property as consideration in the name of his spouse or in the name of the child of any such individual and can certainly not relate back to any other property or joint property or an HUF property or any trust property in relation to which there is only an averment made on behalf of the appellant in the written statement that the property in question was purchased with the funds of her deceased spouse or her father in law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

RSA No. 23/2019 and CM No. 4782/2019

Decided On: 21.07.2020

JAGRITI@GAYATRI Vs VIKAS SHARMA

Print Page

Whether joint owners of property can be given unequal share in partition?

 I however cannot agree with this argument for the reason that
before partition, depending on the circumstances, one or more coowners
can stay in possession of the joint properties, but mere
possession will not prove existence of partition, more so when trial 
court has rightly observed and held that the partition is clearly
inequitable because out of two properties jointly owned by Sh. Surat
Singh and Sh. Mahinder Singh, Sh. Surat Singh cannot claim to have
become owner of one and a half share of the two properties. Also trial
court has also observed that one lone fact of receiving rent of one shop
is not enough to hold that partition had taken place in the fifties, and
that too an unequal and inequitable partition, where the predecessorin-interest
of the appellants/defendants (Sh. Surat Singh) received
75% of the two properties and the predecessor-in-interest of
respondent nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs received only 25% share when
admittedly both Sh. Surat Singh and Sh. Mahinder Singh had 50%
share each.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RFA No. 331/2018
20th April, 2018

KULWANT SINGH Vs  GURDEEP SINGH 

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

Print Page

What is distinction between concept of joint ownership and co-ownership of ancestral properties?

It can be seen that the plaintiffs have not understood the concept of joint ownership and co-ownership of ancestral properties. Ancestral properties cannot be jointly owned. Joint properties survive to the joint holders entirely upon the death of one joint holder. Ancestral properties survive to all the members of the coparcenary. Ancestral properties can be co- owned by community of interest and unity of possession such that each party is an owner of an undivided share. Upon the incidents of joint family property or coparcenary property, this interest is augmented by the death of any coparcener (co-owner) and is diminished by the birth of any coparcener in the HUF. The fact remains that the properties in Exhibit A stated to be the co- owned or jointly owned are unmistakably and repeatedly stated to be ancestral properties. The ancestral properties would survive to the coparceners in a Hindu coparcenary owning such joint family properties. The only exceptions to that would be the interest of the deceased Hindu in such coparcenary.

Bombay High Court

Shalini Sumant Raut & Ors vs Milind Sumant Raut & Ors on 14 December, 2012

Bench: R. S. Dalvi

Print Page