This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property situate at 4/1, Audiappa Street, Purasawakkam, Madras-84, for a declaration that the sale deeds dated 16-6-95 executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 are sham and nominal and not binding on the plaintiff, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from altering the physical features of the property or dealing with the suit property without reference to the plaintiff's rights, for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- per month towards damages from the date of plaint till the date of delivery of possession and for costs.

2. Plaint averments are as follows :

Plaintiff married the first defendant on 18-11-76 at Jain Bhavan, Madras according to Jain Custom. Two childern viz. M. Pinky and Naresh Kumar were born to them. When the suit property was acquired by the plaintiff out of his own funds, they were living at No. 93, Portughese Church Street, Madras-1 in 1989. Plaintiff was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Mahaveer Nylon Ropes Co. Out of his business income, the plaintiff purchased the suit property. He purchased part of the schedule mentioned property measuring 1776 sq. ft. by a registered Sale Deed dated 6-6-89 from Kamaleswari and others for a consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- while he purchased 519 sq. ft. of property by a deed of sale dated 23-8-89 from Sathyaseelan for a consideration of Rs. 55,000/- He purchased the entire suit property in the name of his wife, the first defendant herein. He drew amounts from his Account No.765 with Indian Bank, Clock Tower Branch, Royapettah, Madras, for the purchase of the property. He also drew money from his account No. 2351, 176/1, 1633 held in Bank of Tamil Nadu, now merged with Indian Overseas Bank, Broadway, Madras. Apart from the above, he also availed overdraft facility from Indian Bank, Clock Tower Branch to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- The said sale consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- was paid to the vendors by way of demand draft while Rs.55,000/- was paid by way of cheque. He has been earning substantial income from his business and the first defendant is not the real owner of the suit property. He is the real owner. He obtained approved planning permission from the Corporation of Madras. He commenced demolition and reconstruction of the property. After following the usual procedures, he started erecting the new structures in accordance with the sanctioned plan. He engaged the services of Emerald Construction, Anna Nagar, Madras through their architect Mr. Sathnam Singh for the construction work. He completed substantial constructions of the property except plastering, paint washing, mosaic flooring and wooden work, etc. There had been difference of opinion between the plaintiff and the first defendant and she withdrew herself from the company of the plaintiff and moved to her mothers place. The suit property was purchased for the benefit of the family. The first defendant cannot claim any exclusive ownership over the property inasmuch as the plaintiff has contributed the entire sale consideration for the purchase of the suit property. The first defendant has removed all the original title deeds of the suit property and other documents. On enquiry, he was informed pursuant to a sale deed dated 16-6-95. Part of the suit property measuring 1465 sq.ft. in the ground floor was sold in favour of the second defendant for Rs. 6 lakhs. Similarly, the first floor was sold by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant for Rs.6.00 lakhs. After demolition and reconstruction, the property is worth several lakhs as on date. The real sale consideration in respect of the sale effected by the first defendant would be much more than what is stated above. The sales effected by her in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 are sham and nominal. The first defendant is a person of no means and has no independent source of