The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a dispute over property ownership, the party seeking relief must prove that the property was not purchased for the benefit of the wife, but for the benefit of the family as a whole.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. This defendant’s appeal is directed against the judgment of the Family Court dated 01.11.2013 passed in CS No.13/2010. The impugned judgment decreed the husband’s suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of flat Nos.H-2/21 & H-2/21D, First Floor, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi - 110 045, which is hereby referred to as “suit property”.

2. The brief facts are that the parties to the suit solemnized their marriage on 12.05.1999. Two children, i.e., a boy and a girl were born out of the wedlock. The suit property was purchased through a sale deed executed on 06.12.2006, which reflected the appellant as owner of the property. The parties started living separately in 2010; eventually their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act by order dated 05.07.2014. The husband (hereafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) filed a suit claiming to be real and true owner of the suit property.

3. The suit contended inter alia that since parties were living in a rented accommodation in Dwarka, in 2006, the husband purchased the suit property in the name of the appellant wife “out of love and affection”. The suit also leveled certain allegations of matrimonial misbehavior against the wife, i.e., intimacy with one Rajnish Thakur, owner of the chartered bus, which the wife used for travelling to her office. It was alleged that the wife left the matrimonial home of her own accord after quarrelling with the plaintiff and later she attempted to sell the property. The appellant in the written statement objected to the maintainability of the suit and alleged that the husband plaintiff has concealed the facts. She asserted that she paid the consideration for the suit property and she was discharging the liability towards monthly installment payments for clearing the loan liability. She also alleged that the husband forced her out of the matrimonial home. The written statement even attributed acts of forgery to the plaintiff.

4. In support of the suit claim, the plaintiff led his evidence including the oral testimonies of three other witnesses. This included the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 who were bank officials and who brought the certified copies of statement of accounts for the period 01.10.2006 to 31.03.2013. Likewise the defendant relied upon the testimonies of three witnesses which included the evidence of DW-2 from State Bank of India which had produced the bank statement for the period 01.06.2006 - 31.07.2007 (Ex.DW-2/3) and the bank account statement for the period 01.05.2006 - 31.07.2006 (Ex.DW-2/4).

5. The first issue framed by the Family Court was whether the plaintiff proved that he was owner of the property. While considering this, the Family Court took into account the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as “Benami Act”) and the judgments of the Supreme Court reported as Nand Kishore Mehra v. Sushila Mehra, AIR 1995 SC 215; Jaydal Poddar v. Mst. Bibi Hazra, AIR 1974 SC 171; Gapadibai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 2 SCC 327. The impugned judgment after noticing the relevant provisions specially Section 3 of the Benami Act as well as the ruling in Nand Kishore Mehra (supra) held that the onus to prove that the property was not for the benefit of the wife was upon the plaintiff/husband and that he was yet to prove it strictly. The Family Court thereafter observed as follows: -

“32. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the parties were married according to Hindu Customs and Rites on 12-05-99 and they have resided together till 27-02-2010.The suit property has been purchased on 06-12-2006 from its erstwhile owner. It is not in dispute that the Sale Deed had been executed in the name of the defendant. DW-4 was a witness to the registered Sale Deed and he has also deposed about the Sale Deed being executed in the name of the defendant without any force, pressure or coercion and he having signed the same