The court affirmed that transactions between spouses under the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act do not constitute benami transactions, allowing for shared ownership claims based on evidence of property acquisition.

JUDGMENT :

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.

The plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2016 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Honavar, in O.S.No.15/2014, by granting 1/4^th share each in Sl.No.4 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties the above appeal is preferred questioning the said judgment and decree for not granting share of 1/4^th in all the properties.

2. Rank of the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial court.

PLAINT:

3. The plaintiff has filed suit for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds for claiming 1/4^th share in all the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. It is stated that plaintiff is the mother, defendant No.1 is the wife and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children of deceased Ravindra Ganapati Shanbhag. The deceased was given employment under the compassionate ground upon death of his father. The deceased Ravindra Shanbhag died on 03.11.2012 while he was working as a First Division Assistant at Government High School Jalavalli. It is contended that suit schedule ‘A’ properties were acquired by the deceased Ravindra Shanbhag and after his death the names of plaintiff and defendants were mutated, but defendant No.1 by anyhow got mutated her name in the property records. It is stated that the plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties. The suit schedule ‘B’ properties are the monetary benefits accrued on the death of deceased Ravindra Shanbhag. The plaintiff is entitled to share of 1/4^th in schedule ‘B’ properties being Class 1 legal heirs. Therefore, filed suit for partition and separate possession by claiming 1/4^th share in the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties.

WRITTEN STATEMENT:

4. After service of suit summons to the defendants, the defendant No.1 appeared through her counsel and filed written statement, also on behalf of her minor children defendant Nos.2 and 3. The defendants admitted the relationship between the parties with deceased Ravindra Shanbhag.

5. The defendant No.1 has contended that she has paid the entire sale consideration amount for the purchase of suit schedule Item No.3 of schedule ‘A’ properties, but purchased in the name of her husband - Ravindra Shanbhag, as he is her husband. Therefore, quite naturally sale deeds were executed in the name of her husband. Hence, contended that the properties Item Nos.1 to 3 of schedule ‘A’ are self acquired properties of defendant No.1. Further so far as ‘B’ schedule properties are concerned, those are monetary benefits upon the death of her husband Ravindra Shanbhag and therefore, defendants are only entitled for those monetary benefits.

5.1. The defendant No.1 admitted that property at Item No.4 in schedule ‘A’ properties has been purchased by her husband Ravindra Shanbhag. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to share only in the property at Item No.4 in schedule ‘A’ property. Further stated that her husband deceased Ravindra Shanbhag has borrowed loan and has given money to his brother Arun Ganapati Shanbhag for purchase of Site No.36, KHB Colony in Sy.No.517, M1A1 measuring 0-1-05.33, but the said property has not been included in the suit and as such, the suit is not maintainable. Hence, on all the pleadings prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.2 Further the defendant No.1 got amended her written statement contending that the plaintiff has received a sum of Rs.1,04,179/- and Rs.18,098/- in total sum of Rs.1,22,277/- in respect of two LIC pol