A purchase of property by a husband in the name of his wife is presumed to be for the benefit of the wife, unless the contrary is proved.

( 1 ) THIS first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6th January, 1993 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 6th Bench in Title Suit No. 2358 of 1981. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and partition against the appellants. The suit property stands in the name of the defendant No. 1. It is claimed that the property belonged to the father of the plaintiff and the defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 and husband of the defendant No. 1, the mother. The father purchased the property in the benami of the ,other (defendant No. 1 ). The father had business. Out of the income of such business, the father acquired several properties including the one in dispute. It was attempted to show taht the father had sufficient means and the mother had none. 1. 1. The defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 had contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. According to them, the defendant No. 1 mother purchased the property out of her stridhan. The father of the defendant No. 1 had contributed funds to her. She had obtained advance from the tenants. She also secured money by selling her share in some property. A suit for eviction was filed by the defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff. The present suit was a counter-blast thereto. 1. 2. The plaintiff examined himself and three other witnesses. The defendant examined herself alone. The learned trial Judge after having considered the evidence had decreed the suit ex-parte against the defendant No. 3 and on contest against other defendants declaring 1/5th share of the plaintiff and each of the parties in the suit property. The case and the evidence:

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the property was purchased on 1st of September, 1942 in the name of the defendant No. 1 by a registered deed of conveyance from Calcutta Improvement Trust for a consideration of Rs. 10,797/- paid in five installments. The 1/4th undivided share of a building at Baral Patra Lane was purchased in the name of the defendant No. 1 in 1945 along with the other brothers of the father. According to the plaintiff, the building was constructed at different stages right from 1944-45. It was completed in 1963. Whereas the defendant No. 1 had alleged that the construction was started in 1943 and completed in 1980. The plaintiff sought to allege that his father had acquired a sum of Rs. 11,000/- by selling a land in 1958. This was alleged to be a vacant land purchased by the father in 1948. The plaintiff has not proved the said sale by any cogent evidence except making a bald statement. On this point, no suggestion was given to the defendant No. 1 at the time of her examination. Therefore, this fact of finance obtained by the father does not seem to have been proved. Admittedly, the 1/4th share in Baral Para property was sold in 1951 for a sum of Rs. 8,000/ -. The plaintiff alleges that Baral Para property was purchased by the father in the benami of the mother whereas the defendant No. 1 claims that the property was purchased by her. She has alleged to have received advance from her tenants. But this was not proved by cogent evidence by the defendant No. 1. According to her, the building was completed in 1980. She had attempted to explain the source of income. She contended that the maintenance for the family was being borne by her husband whereas she purchased the property out of the money given to her by her father and the construction was made by her own fund. 2. 1. The plaintiff had sought to prove that the father had a business from which he had substantial income. The father used to pay sales tax. But the payment of sales tax has not been proved. The exhibits through which payment of sales tax by the firm of which the father of the plaintiff was a partner, however, was admitted by the defendant No. 1. But the same does not seem to have been proved by the evidence of the officer (PW 4) of the Sales Tax Department. The exhibits do not disclose that the partnership firm of the father of the plaintif