G. MAHALINGAPPA versus G.M. SAVITHA

G. MAHALINGAPPA versus G.M. SAVITHA

Section 4(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is not applicable to suits and written statements filed before the Act's commencement; concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts that the property was purchased benami for the benefit of the appellant and not the respondent cannot be disturbed in second appeal by the High Court unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence.

Parties
Appellant: G. Mahalingappa; Respondent: G.M. Savitha
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Benami Transactions, Declaratory Relief, Possession, Second Appeals
Property Law Civil Procedure Benami Transactions Declaratory Relief Possession Second Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. Mahalingappa

Appellant

G.M. Savitha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 4(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 bars the defence of benami in suits filed before the Act came into force
  2. 2 Whether concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Section 4(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is not applicable to suits and written statements filed before the Act's commencement; concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts that the property was purchased benami for the benefit of the appellant and not the respondent cannot be disturbed in second appeal by the High Court unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of High Court set aside
  • Judgment of trial court and appellate court affirmed