The contribution to the purchase consideration of a property does not create any title or interest in the property in favor of the person making the contribution.

1. CS(OS) No.3/1992 has been filed by the plaintiff therein Satish Kumar Gupta (Satish) against his father defendant No.1 Shanti Swaroop Gupta (Shanti Swaroop) and against his brother defendant No.2 Sunil Kumar Gupta (Sunil), for (i) declaration that Satish is the sole owner of the first and second floors with terrace rights of property No.F-10, East of Kailash, New Delhi; and, (ii) declaration that Satish is also the sole owner of half of the ground floor, after partition of the same, pleading that (a) Satish is the eldest and Sunil is the youngest son of Shanti Swaroop; (b) family of Shanti Swaroop also comprises of his wife, another son Anil Kumar Gupta (Anil) and a daughter Madhu Aggarwal (Madhu); (c) the wife of Shanti Swaroop is invalid and Anil owns a house at 86, Kailash Hills and was given Rs.2 lakhs by Satish from the account of Maharaja Exporters (India) (now the sole proprietary of Satish) for purchase of 86, Kailash Hills; (d) there are other properties of Shanti Swaroop which he intends to give to Sunil and Madhu is happily married; (e) since Shanti Swaroop has provided for Anil and Sunil, he promised to Satish exclusive ownership of property No.F-10, East of Kailash, New Delhi, as Satish had put in his labour and contributed towards the cost of purchase and construction of the said property; (f) property No.F-10, East of Kailash, New Delhi was purchased in or about the year 1978 and Satish had also contributed substantial funds; the agreement to sell and sale deed were however executed in the name of Shanti Swaroop, since he was the head of the family; the physical possession of the property was handed over to Satish and Shanti Swaroop on 21st May, 1978; (g) it is for said reason only that the vendor/seller of the said property also executed two registered General Power of Attorneys (GPAs) in favour of Satish, one on 22nd November, 1978 and the other on 1st October, 1980, authorising Satish to complete the partly constructed building, modify the plan, apply for permissions etc.; (h) GPAs were executed in favour of Satish at the behest of Shanti Swaroop, since substantial funds have been contributed by Satish towards purchase and further construction of the said property; (i) Satish, acting on the representation of Shanti Swaroop that the entire property would be transferred in name of Satish, raised funds for construction of first and second floors of the property; (j) a portion of first floor of the property, since the year 1981, is exclusively used for business of Maharaja Exporters (India); (k) Satish even otherwise, being the eldest son, has always shouldered the responsibility of the family and for this reason also Shanti Swaroop admitted in his own handwriting and acknowledged orally that Satish was instrumental in procurement of the house and had contributed major cost of the house; (l) all the original title documents of the property are also in possession of Satish; (m) Shanti Swaroop also signed a proposed gift deed and indemnity bond dated 3rd September, 1991 and two letters also dated 3rd September, 1991 and 26th September, 1991 for obtaining permission from Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for transfer of title of the property to the name of Satish; and, (n) Shanti Swaroop is estopped from contending otherwise.

2. The suit was entertained and vide ex-parte ad-interim order dated 2nd January, 1992, while issuing summons of the suit, Shanti Swaroop was restrained from creating third party interest in or parting with possession of or alienating the property in any manner whatsoever. Shanti Swaroop and Sunil, though appeared in response to the summons through advocate, did not file written statement and also did not appear on 8th April, 1994 and were proceeded against ex-parte. Shanti Swaroop and Sunil thereafter appeared on 21st November, 1995 and stated that an application for setting aside of the order proceeding ex-parte against Shanti Swaroop and Sunil had been filed. The suit was thereaf