| Case ID |
f6e92795-8bd5-4a8d-9aab-2e6e49a31007 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 1991 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 01, 1991 |
| Decision |
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the lessee/defendant No. 2, affirming the first appellate court's finding that the lease deed dated August 24, 1960, was a sham transaction. The court held that the mere allegation of property being held benami does not invoke the provisions of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The evidence presented did not substantiate the claim that the plaintiff was a benamidar. The court emphasized that the transaction was created to circumvent the Punjab Preemption Act and that the lease was not a legitimate agreement but rather a fictitious arrangement. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the counsel's fee was assessed at Rs. 1,000. |
| Summary |
In the case of Kesho Ram v. Chetan Dass, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the complexities surrounding the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. This landmark case revolved around the legitimacy of a lease transaction that was alleged to be a sham designed to evade the provisions of the Punjab Preemption Act. The original owners had sold the property to the plaintiff, Kesho Ram, while simultaneously leasing it to the defendants for an extended period. The court scrutinized the evidence, including testimonies that supported the plaintiff's claims against the defendants' assertions of the plaintiff being a mere benamidar. The ruling underscored the necessity of substantial proof for claims of property being held benami, reiterating that mere allegations are insufficient to invoke legal prohibitions. The decision serves as a precedent, emphasizing the need for clarity in property transactions and the legal repercussions of circumventing statutory provisions. This case is significant for legal practitioners and property owners, highlighting the strict interpretation of benami laws and the protection they afford against fraudulent practices. |
| Court |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
G.R. Majithia
|
| Lawyers |
Gopi Chand,
K.S. Grewal
|
| Petitioners |
Kesho Ram
|
| Respondents |
Chetan Dass
|
| Citations |
1991 SLD 2090,
(1991) 192 ITR 446
|
| Other Citations |
Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare [1989] 177 ITR 97 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
|
| Sections |
4
|