Home Case Index All Cases Benami Property Benami Property + SC Benami Property - 2012 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURTBenami Transactions - Scope of the term "fiduciary capacity" - Whether the entire sale consideration required for the purchase of the suit property was provided by the defendant or contributions in that regard were made even by the plaintiffs - Held that :- Defendant failed to establish that the entire sale consideration was paid by him - On the contrary plaintiffs established they contributed towards sale consideration and the balance amount has been contributed by the first plaintiff - Cannot be said that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property – Against assesse. Whether the plaintiffs and the defendant were co-owners of the suit property – Held that :- By reason of their contribution and the contribution made by their father continued to evince interest in the property and its ownership. Whether the sale transaction in favour of the appellant was a benami transaction so as to be hit by the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Held that :- HC held that if a part of the consideration paid for the property in dispute had been provided by the appellant in whose name the property was purchased, the transaction could not be said to be a benami transaction under section 4 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Scope of the term "fiduciary capacity" - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - held that:- It is manifest that while the expression "fiduciary capacity" may not be capable of a precise definition, it implies a relationship that is analogous to the relationship between a trustee and the beneficiaries of the trust. The expression is in fact wider in its import for it extends to all such situations as place the parties in positions that are founded on confidence and trust on the one part and good faith on the other. - In determining whether a relationship is based on trust or confidence, relevant to determining whether they stand in a fiduciary capacity, the Court shall have to take into consideration the factual context in which the question arises for it is only in the factual backdrop that the existence or otherwise of a fiduciary relationship can be deduced in a given case.
|