Skip to main content

Mere Financial Assistance To Buy Property Cannot Be Termed Benami Transaction

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1099 OF 2008, Smt. P. Leelavathi vs V. Shankarnarayana Rao, the plaintiff claimed share of some properties in possession of her brothers alleging that though the properties are in her brothers name, they are not self acquired by her brothers, rather their father had actually paid the money and therefore the properties being benami transactions of her father, she had rights to the same. 

On appeal, the Supreme Court referring to various transactions observed that while considering a particular transaction as benami, the intention of the person who contributed the purchase money is determinative of the nature of transaction and what the intention of the person who contributed the purchase money, has to be decided on the basis of the surrounding circumstance; the relationship of the parties; the motives governing their action in bringing about the transaction and their subsequent conduct etc. The source of the money has never been the sole consideration but not determinative in character. Finally referring to Valliammal v. Subramaniam (2004), the court observed that in considering whether a particular transaction is benami in nature, the following six circumstances can be taken as a guide:
(1) the source from which the purchase money came;
(2) the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase;
(3) motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour;
(4) the position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamidar;
(5) the custody of the title deeds after the sale; and
(6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale.

The Court decided that based on the above observations hat the plaintiff has failed to prove that the purchase of the suit properties – Item Nos. I(a) to I(c) in the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were benami in nature mere financial assistance to buy a property cannot be the sole determinative factor/circumstance to hold the transaction as benami in nature.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more