DINESH KUMARI MISHRA Vs. RANJANA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) It is submitted that despite the best efforts, no settlement is possible. On the previous date of hearing, this Court had on consideration of the facts recorded inter alia as follows:

(3.) The parties had sought for some time to explore the possibility of a settlement. As mentioned earlier, a settlement is not forthcoming. However, the Defendant had made a submission stating that even though this Court had rendered its prima facie view, the question of ratio or the portion of shares of property is undetermined, and that evidence is required to be gone into for this purpose. The Defendant's learned Senior counsel relied upon Section-45 of the Transfer of Property Act to submit that in such cases where ownership is admitted, the concerned parties would be entitled to shares in the property, in accordance with the proportion of payment (of consideration) made by them for acquiring it. It is stated that this provision remains unaffected by enactment of Benami Transactions (Prohibitions) Act, 1988 -hereafter referred to as Benami Act. Section-45 (of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882) reads as follows: