9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 2022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uman Associates. For the Respondents : Mr. T. Ravichandiran. JUDGMENT The plaintiffs are the appellants before the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur. The suit is laid for partition of the suit property that was in the name of their brother, the sole defendant in the suit. 2. The allegation in the plaint was suit property was purchased by a certain Maruthumuthu, the father of the parties herein i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The trial Court on appreciating the evidence, has found that the deceased sole defendant could not have possessed necessary resources to purchase the property in 1956, and accordingly it held that the property is partible and passed a preliminary decree for partition. This decree was reversed by the first Appellate Court and it non-suited the plaintiffs. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs have p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out in evidence that the defendant was of tender age at the relevant time, and was not shown to possess requisite resources to receive the consideration payable under Ext.B1 sale deed, and consequently, came to the conclusion and that on preponderance of probability that funds moved only from the plaintiffs for providing consideration for the same. 7. When the learned counsel for the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such property.'' 8. Thus, with the advent of the prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, it is no more permissible for anyone to plead benami either in the plaint or in the written statement, unless the case falls within the exceptions provided under Section 4 of the said Act. However, if any of the parties to the litigation claims to fall under the exception, to Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
