V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J.

( 1. ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge in C.S. No. 1203 of 1995 dated 19.3.2001.

( 2. ) THE ranking of the parties before the learned single Judge are maintained in this judgment.

The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows: The first defendant is the wife of the plaintiff. The marriage between the first defendant and the plaintiff took place on 18.11.1976 at Jain Bhavan, Madras, according to Jain custom. Due to the wedlock, two children, viz., M. Pinky and Naresh Kumar were born to them. The plaintiff acquired the suit property out of his own funds and the plaintiff along with his wife and children were living at No. 93, Portughese Church Street, Madras-1 in 1989. Plaintiff was carrying on business under the name and style of Mahaveer Nylon Ropes Co. The Plaintiff purchased the suit property out of the income from his business. He purchased part of the schedule mentioned property measuring 1776 sq.ft. by a registered sale deed dated 6.6.1989 from Kamaleswari and others for a consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/-. He also purchased 519 sq.ft. of property by a deed of sale dated 23.8.1989 from Sathyaseelan for a consideration of Rs. 55,000/-. The plaintiff purchased the entire suit property in the name of his wife, the first defendant herein. The amount for the purchase of the property was withdrawn from his bank account No. 765 with Indian Bank, Clock Tower Branch, Royapettah, Madras. Further amount was drawn from his bank account No. 2351, 176/1, 1633 held in Bank of Tamil Nadu, now merged with Indian Overseas Bank, Broadway, Madras. Further, the plaintiff 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 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 and completed substantial construction of the property except plastering, plaint 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 mother?s 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 that his property was sold to the second defendant pursuant to a sale deed dated 16.6.1995. 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 income or any tangible property from and out of which she could purchase the suit property. If the suit property is let out to any third party on a rental basis, it would fetch a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- for each floor). He would have earned a minimum income of Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 25,000 per month from the property. Hence, the suit.

( 3. ) THE a