In Brief
A son claimed exclusive ownership of a house plot and construction registered in his name under a perpetual lease from the President of India. The trial court and High Court decreed his suit for possession against his brother and sister. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding the property was joint family property acquired by the father with funds paid in 1963, not the son's separate property. Although the title was transferred to the son upon his marriage, he never lived in the house; the entire family resided there continuously. Section 4(3)(a) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act did not apply. The Court found the lower courts acted perversely by accepting documentary evidence of the son's name without weighing actual family possession and enjoyment."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.