In disputes over jointly owned property, all parties have an equal right to claim their share, and the burden of proof lies with the party denying ownership rights of co-owners.

JUDGMENT

Yogesh Khanna, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 09.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-2/Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the learned `Trial Court') in CS No.892/2016 (Old No.28/2014) whereby the suit of the respondent was decreed against the appellant.

2. The respondent filed the suit for possession, partition, damages/mesne profits, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the appellant in respect of property bearing No.85/92, Bhim Gali No.7, Ganga Sahai Colony, Village Mandoli, Delhi-110093 admeasuring 50 square yards falling in Khasra No.25, 10/2, Renvenue Estate of village Mandoli, Delhi (hereafter referred as the `suit property').

3. The brief facts are:

a) the appellant and respondent jointly purchased the suit property for a consideration of Rs.50,000/-, contributing equal share by way of irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 25.06.2005 duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar -IV, Seelampur, Delhi on 30.08.2005;

b) it was alleged the respondent is 50% owner of the suit property and in the year 2008-09 had constructed a room, toilet and bathroom at the first floor of the suit property and gave it to the appellant to use it as a licensee;

c) in the first week of October 2013, the respondent along with her husband contacted the appellant and her husband (Jeth of the respondent) in the presence of other family members and requested the appellant to hand over her 50% portion and to raise partition wall in the suit property and verbally terminated the license of the upper portion of suit property, but to no avail; and

d) on 02.01.2004 she again went to the appellant along with the family members, but nothing was done and the original documents executed by the erstwhile owner were with the appellant and since he even refused to give photostat copy of the irrevocable General Power of Attorney, she had no other option but to obtain the certified copy from the office of the Sub Registrar and finding no other alternative, issued the legal notice dated 22.01.2014 to the appellant through counsel asking her to partition the suit property and hand over 50% of the same; hence the above said suit.

4. The appellant on appearing before the learned Trial Court controverted each and every allegations made in the plaint by filing the written statement. It is stated the suit property was purchased by the respondent for a consideration of Rs.3,07,000/- from the erstwhile and she took loan of only Rs.1.00 lac from the appellant, which she repaid in the year 2008 vide receipt, but since the suit property was in the joint names of the parties, her request fell on deaf ear of appellant qua her request for deleting her name from the property documents.

5. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property is jointly purchased in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant? OPP

2. Whether the defendant proves that she had taken a loan without interest of Rs.1 Lakh from the plaintiff for purchase of the property and that in the guise of such loan transaction, the plaintiff had played fraud on the defendant and her husband as stated in the preliminary objection in the WS? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as in the suit for partition and consequential relief? OPP

4. What Relief."

6. The respondent examined herself as PW1 and proved the site plan of the suit property as Ex.PW1/1; certified copy of registered Irrevocable General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW1/2; copy of legal notice dated 22.01.2014 as Ex.PW1/3