Law:

Section:

Section 3, read with section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Prohibition of benami transactions - Whether where a person raises a plea that an apparent state of affairs is not real state of affairs or apparent owner is not real owner, onus of proof to prove necessary ingredients of a benami transaction lies upon person who sets up plea - Held, yes - Whether, however, if plea is raised that an acquisition was made by husband for benefit of his wife, burden of proof shifts to other side - Held, yes - Whether where appellant/defendant had raised question of benami in her written statement and Trial Court upheld same but reasonings adopted by Trial Court were not considered by appellate Court, and it decided against appellant, there was an error of record and case was to be remitted to appellate court, for fresh decision - Held, yes FACTS The plaintiff alleged that her mother, 'MB', took settlement of certain land by reason of a registered deed of settlement dated 10-3-1950, and came into possession thereof. She constructed a house over a portion of the aforementioned land and began to live there with her family members. She died in the year 1973 leaving the plaintiff as her only daughter and 'LM', her husband, and as such the plaintiff's share in her property was 3/4ths. Accordingly to the plaintiff, there had been a partition between her and 'LM', as a result whereof, three kathas of land with house fell to the share of the plaintiff and two kathas of land fell to the share of 'LM' who executed a deed of sale dated 9-2-1983, in favour of one 'NK' and thereafter he left the village and began to live at his father-in-law's place. However, the appellant/defendant was allowed to live in one of the rooms of the disputed property by plaintiff's mother some time in the year 1970 and in lieu thereof she used to assist her in her domestic affairs. After the death of MB, the plaintiff allowed the appellant defendant to live in the suit house as a licensee. Despite the requests made in this regard, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises and, as such, the plaintiff had to file a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492