Dalveer Bhandari, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit for declaration. The plaintiff prayed that he is the true owner of the properties bearing No. B-80, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi and plot No. 9, Anand Industrial Estate, Village Arthala, Distt. Ghaziabad (U. P.) and he be declared as a true owner of these properties. 2. This Court on 28th January, 1992 issued summons and notice to the defendant and also restrained the defendant from selling and parting with possession of the property bearing No. B-80, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi. It may be pertinent to mention that the plainti ff did not press the relief with regard to plot No. 9, Anand Industrial Estate, 672 Village Arthala, Distt. Ghaziabad (U. P.) therefore, this judgment is confined to the property bearing No. B-80, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi. 3. In the plaint it is incorporated that the defendant was married to the plaintiff in the year 1954. It is also disclosed in the plaint that before this marriage the plaintiff was married to one Smt. Bimla (the plaintiff s first wife) and has four sons out of that marriage. Similarly the defendant was also already married. The plamtiff used to stay in Bombay where he had extensive business including manufacturing industrial units. 4. It is also mentioned in the plaint that the defendant had joined the plaintiff s company as a casual typist in the year 1950. The plamtiff and the defendant got attracted to each other and decided to marry, although both the plaintiff and the defendant were already married. 5. Since the marriage had taken place before the Hindu Marriage Act. came into force therefore, there was no impediment so far as the plaintiff was concerned. The defendant had applied for a divorce and got the divorce from her first husband in the year 1953. 6. Since the first wife of the plaintiff and children were living in Bombay and they did not take the marriage of the plaintiff kindly, therefore, the plaintiff decided to take a house on rent at 113, Golf Links, New Delhi in the year 1954 and stayed in the said house in Delhi with the defendant for over 25 years. 7. It is also alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff from his own funds had acquired the property bearing No. B-80, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi for a total consideration of Rs. 50,000. 00. The construction was completed in the year 1969. After the construction, the house was let out and the rent was received in the name of the defendant. The plot was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of his wife. The rent was received partly in the name of the plaintiff and partly in the name of the defendant. 8. It is also disclosed in the plaint that the reason for receiving the rent in the name of the defendant was that the household expenses for the plaintiff s house in Delhi had to be met and the plaintiff had to be mostly away from Delhi in connection with his business. The defendant was thus receiving the major portion of rent simply for meeting the household expenses. The defendant was receiving the rent for and on behalf of the plaintiff and really for his benefit as under law and even otherwise the plaintiff was obliged to maintain the defendant, being his wife. 9. It is mentioned that in the year 1988, the plaintiff was away from India and the defendant in his absence shifted her residence from Delhi to Hyderabad. The reason given by her for shifting to Hyderabad that the plaintiff remained busy in business and she wanted to be near her niece, who had been brought up by the defendant and got married in Hyderabad. It was also mentioned that the real reason of shifting to Hyderabad was perhaps to derive the plaintiff of the properties which were in fact purchased by the plaintiff in her name. 10. It is also incorporated in the plaint that the defendant always treated the plaintiff as the owner of the property until April, 1990 but later on her attitude changed. II. It is reiterated that the plaintiff purchased the plot and had spent amount on construction. The de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document