Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
S.V. Shanthi & Another - Appellant
Versus
S. Venkat Prabhu & Others - Respondent
C.M.A(MD)No. 353 of 2022 & C.M.P(MD)No. 3217 of 2022
Decided On : 06-05-2022
Benami Transaction - Property Dispute - Benami Transaction and Prohibition Act, 1988 - Section 3(2) - Hindu Succession Act - Section 14
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a property dispute between a husband and wife over a hospital property. The husband filed a suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, while the wife claimed ownership and possession of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife was the true owner of the property and in possession based on property tax receipts, income tax returns, and other documents. The court vacated the injunction granted to the husband and dismissed the husband's application.
Issues: Dispute over ownership and possession of the hospital property, allegations of Benami transaction, and application of the Hindu Succession Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of property tax receipts, income tax returns, and other documents to determine ownership and possession. The court also considered the provisions of the Benami Transaction and Prohibition Act, 1988, and the Hindu Succession Act.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, and the order granting injunction to the husband was dismissed. The wife was given protection for her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 22.03.2022 made in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.S.No.83 of 2021 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Theni.)
The defendants 1 & 2 in the suit are the appellants herein.
2. Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel takes notice for the caveator/R1 and Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 2 &3.
3. After hearing both the parties and with the consent of both parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself and disposed of by this judgment.
4. The 1st appellant/1st defendant is the wife of the 1st respondent/plaintiff.
5. The 1st respondent/plaintiff/husband filed O.S.No.83 of 2021 seeking the relief of declaration of title to the suit property and for permanent injunction on the file of the learned District Sessions Judge, Theni. Pending suit, he has also filed I.A.No.4 of 2021 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Theni, seeking interim injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. The suit property is a hospital and the 1st respondent/husband is a Doctor and the first appellant is the wife of the 1st respondent and the husband/1st respondent has been running the hospital situated in the suit property.
6. The plaint proceeds on the basis that the marriage between the plaintiff and 1st defendant was solemnised on 07.06.1998 at Salem and due to wedlock, they have a male child namely, Sriadhithyaraj, born on 28.05.2001 and now he is studying in Philiphines Medical College. The matrimonial disparity arising between the parties and allegations and counter allegations between each other as could be seen from the affidavit and counter affidavit filed before the trial Court.
6(a). The subject matter of the suit property is land and building wherein there is a hospital in the name and style of Sri Sairam Hospital at Theni. The plaint further proceeds on the basis that the plaintiff/husband purchases the suit property in the name of the 1st defendant/wife on 10.07.2002 vide sale deed No.2886/2002 dated 10.07.2002 from one Ayyadurai and his sons namely, Suresh, Ramesh and Saravanan and the same was registered in the Sub Registrar office, Theni.
6(c). According to the plaintiff, it is not a Benami transaction and it is exempted under Section 3(2) of the Benami Transaction and Prohibition Act, 1988. He is running a hospital there and he want to protect his alleged possession and he filed the suit as well as the interim application.
7. As per the written statement and counter filed in the suit, various allegations has been made as to the extra-marital affairs said to have been carried on by the plaintiff Dr.S.Venkat Prabhu with one Sangeetha and also alleged that he had fathered a baby girl through her and the matrimonial disparity resulted in filing of divorce petition before the Family Court, Theni.
8. From the submissions made by the respective counsel, I find that due to the more sensitivity of the case filed before the Family Court Theni is transferred to Family Court, Karur.
9. As per Ex.P4-sale deed, the schedule property stands in the name of the 1st appellant/wife.
10. Mr.P.Jegadeesan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/1st defendant wife would contend that the Family Court alone having jurisdiction to entertain the suit, especially, when the divorce petition filed by the first respondent/husband against the first appellant in the Family Court, Theni, which has been transferred to the Family Court, Karur and pending in H.M.O.P.No.102 of 2021 and would further contend that the appellants have categorically proved that the building was constructed by the appellants and the 1st appellant is in enjoyment and possession of the same. The 1st respondent/plaintiff has n
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of ownership and possession of the property based on documentary evidence and the application of relevant provisions of the Be....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to give an opportunity to both parties to defend the case, especially in light of the inapplicability of the plea of benami after the B....
Disputes regarding property purchased during marriage fall within Family Courts' jurisdiction as per Family Courts Act, 1984.
The burden of proving a benami transaction rests on the party asserting the plea, and the defendants failed to discharge this burden.
The burden of proof in claiming a property as a benami lies on the person alleging it, and presumption favors the name holder unless proven otherwise.
The court emphasized that in ex parte cases, the plaintiff must prove their claims, and the statutory presumption under the Benami Transactions Act favors the spouse unless rebutted.
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the original pleadings and not allowing amendments that introduce new cases or retract admissions, especially if they nullify the opposing party's d....
where a cloud is raised over the plaintiffs title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction is the remedy. Where the plaintiff....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
