SRI MARCEL MARTINSversusM. PRINTER & ORS.
2012 INSC 19127 April 2012Dismissed
The Bangalore Municipal Corporation sold a residential property, originally leased to S, to S's son (the appellant) after S's death, with the sale price contributed by the appellant, S's husband and daughters (respondents). The respondents sued for a declaration of co‑ownership and an injunction, but the trial court di…
VINOD KUMAR DHALLversusDHARAMPAL DHALL (DECEASED)THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS.
2018 INSC 42126 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed
Dharampal Dhall (deceased) filed a suit for restoration of possession, mesne profits and a permanent injunction over a house in Tagore Garden, claiming exclusive ownership based on a lease deed and subsequent name change. The defendants, his brother and sister, contended that the house was a family (joint) property acq…
SAMITTRI DEVI AND ANR.versusSAMPURAN SINGH AND ANR.
2011 INSC 6121 January 2011Appeal(s) allowed
Samitiri Devi (appellant) purchased a house in 1985 with her own funds, but the sale deed was executed in the names of her son and brother‑in‑law. They later sold half of the property to Sampuran Singh (respondent No.1) on 13‑April‑1987 without her consent, despite a notice she had posted on 8‑April‑1987 informing him …
M/S FAIR COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTANTS & ANR.versusSURENDRA KERDILE
2020 INSC 5720 January 2020Dismissed
Surendra Kerdile, the maternal uncle, gave his nephew Sanjay a power of attorney to sell a flat. Two sale agreements were executed, one for Rs 2,30,000 on 03‑07‑1989 and a later one for Rs 1,30,000 on 30‑11‑1989. Surendra advanced Rs 80,000 to Sanjay for business expansion; Sanjay issued post‑dated cheques which were l…
C. SUBBIAH @ KADAMBUR JAYARAJ AND OTHERSversusTHE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS
2024 INSC 41615 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The complainant, a government teacher, alleged that the accused induced him to invest in benami land deals and later failed to deliver the promised plots and profits, leading him to file both a civil suit and a criminal FIR. The accused sought quashing of the FIR and charge sheet, arguing that the dispute was purely ci…
VISHRAM @ PRASAD GOVEKAR & ORS.versusSUDESH GOVEKAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
2016 INSC 121314 December 2016Dismissed
The dispute concerned the ownership of a house (Survey No. 251/2) in Anjuna, Goa, which the respondents claimed was a permanent grant to their father Vassudev Govekar. The appellants, relatives of the deceased owner, argued that the property actually belonged to their grandfather Jagannath Govekar and had erected a new…
P.V. GURU RAJ REDDY REP. BY GPA LAXMI NARAYAN REDDY & ANR.versusP. NEERADHA REDDY & ORS. ETC.
2015 INSC 11313 February 2015Disposed off
The plaintiffs, residing abroad, entrusted their relatives (defendants 1 and 2) to purchase immovable property in Hyderabad in the name of plaintiff No.2. When the plaintiffs discovered in 1999 that the property had been transferred to other relatives (defendants 3 and 4), they issued legal notices and filed two suits …
OM PRAKASH SHARMA@O.P. JOSHIversusRAJENDRA PRASAD SHEWDA & ORS.
2015 INSC 7589 October 2015Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined a dispute over a property in Purulia that had been purchased by Jagannath Joshi with his funds but registered in his wife Moni Debi's name. The Court held that such a purchase, made for the wife's security, is a benami transaction where the wife is the real owner. The plaintiff's claim that h…
SMT. P. LEELAVATHI (D) BY LRSversusV. SHANKARNARAYANA RAO (D) BY LRS
2019 INSC 4959 April 2019Dismissed
Smt. P. Leelavathi filed a partition suit claiming a one‑fourth share in the properties of her late father, alleging that the properties were purchased by her father but held in the names of her brothers, making them benami transactions. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding the properties were self‑acquired by t…
SANTOSH DEVIversusSUNDER
2025 INSC 6271 May 2025Dismissed
The petitioner, Santosh Devi, filed a suit in 2012 seeking cancellation of a sale deed and related mutation, alleging that the deed was obtained through fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, a decision affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court. The petitioner contended th…