Co-ownership established by evidence of purchase money contributions by plaintiffs and defendant, rejecting defendant's claim of sole ownership. No prohibition in law for declaring co-ownership.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs" appeal. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the co-owners of the schedule premises to the extent of their contribution and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs" peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule premises.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is the schedule premises i. e. premises bearing municipal No. 33, A and B Block, Austin Town, Bangalore-47 was originally owned by the Corporation City of Bangalore and the same was given out on lease by the Corporation. The lease was made out in the name of Smt. Stella Martins, wife of plaintiff No. 1 and mother of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the defendant, she being the original allottee. On 18-11-1982 Smt. Stella Martins, the original allottee of the schedule premises expired. On her death it was found that the lease of the schedule property had to be transferred to the name of one of the members of their family. On enquiries made by plaintiff No. 2 it was found that the Corporation would transfer the lease to only one person"s name. At that time plaintiff No. 1 being seriously ill and apprehending that he would die, by undue influence forced his daughters to state that they have no objection for transfer of the tenancy from Smt. Stella Martins to the defendant, he being the only son and that he, would hold the same in trust for his father and sisters. At the time of filing of the application for transfer of the lease the defendant was residing at Bombay. The application was filed on 18-4-1985. The tenancy of the schedule premises was transferred to his name on 2-8-1985. Though the defendant was residing at Bombay and he had ceased to reside in the premises from 1970, the transfer of tenancy was made in his name.

( 3 ) THAT by an order of the Government of Karnataka dated 18-5-1978 sanction was accorded to the proceedings of the administration with an observation that care should be taken to locate the right occupants while disposing the quarters. The plaintiff No. 2 having lived in the schedule premises all her life and being the existing occupant of the schedule premises moved the Corporation to sell the schedule premises to her and the Corporation agreed to sell the same for a price of Rs. 48,636. 00. In order to purchase the schedule premises it was agreed by the plaintiffs and the defendant that the purchase money should be contributed by all, each thus having a right in the scheduled premises as a co-owner. It was agreed that the entire amount be paid by the plaintiff No. 1, and each of the plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 and the defendant would contribute a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00. The plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 and defendant later paid the agreed amount of Rs. 5,000. 00 on various dates to the plaintiff No. 1. Thus the plaintiff No. 1 is the major contributor and each of the plaintiffs and defendant contributed only to the extent of Rs. 5,000. 00 only.

( 4 ) SINCE the lease stood in the name of the defendant the Corporation advised the plaintiff No. 2 that it would be a much simpler procedure to have the scheduled premises transferred to the name of the defendant than to have the same transferred to the names of all the members i. e. , the plaintiffs and defendant. Therefore, the schedule premises was transferred and registered in the name of the defendant and he undertook to hold the same in trust for the other members. The sale deed was effected on 26-6-1987. The defendant came down to Bangalore in 1989 and moved into the schedule premises which caused hardship to plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter, the defendant threatened to throw away plaintiffs 1 and 2 and started asserting absolute ownership over the property. Apprehending any legal action from the defendant plaintiff No. 2 entered the caveat. The defendant approached the KEB for transfer of the electricity meter in his name and started asserting his absolute title to the schedule property.