JUDGMENT :

Sunder Mohan, J.

The appeal is preferred by the wife challenging the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.20 of 2004, by which, the learned Judge, Family Court, Chennai, declared that the suit schedule properties purchased in her name by the husband/respondent are benami properties purchased for the interest of the respondent and not for her beneficial interest.

2. The respondent filed the suit for the declaration that Item Nos.1 to 6 of the suit properties were benami properties purchased by him in the name of the appellant and that she had no beneficial interest in the suit properties.

3. The averments in the plaint filed by the respondent briefly are as follows:

The respondent and the appellant are Christians and got married on 28.05.1990. The respondent was well to do and owned vast extents of agricultural lands besides carrying on the business of the money lending. In the year 1992, he had purchased item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties from his own income and had constructed building from his agricultural income and his own savings. He had paid property tax and electricity consumption charges for those properties and for all practical purposes, he was maintaining the properties as its owner. Thereafter, in the year 1994, he purchased Item Nos. 3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties again from his own savings. A male child was born to the respondent and the appellant on 02.02.2000. The appellant returned after delivery of the child to the matrimonial home in May 2000. Differences arose between the appellant and the respondent thereafter. The appellant prevented the respondent from attending his mother's funeral. She did not breast-feed the child. The respondent came to know that even prior to the marriage, she had association with a third person, who was residing opposite to her parents' house at Tuticorin. While so, on 05.09.2003, the respondent found that the appellant and the child were missing from her home. Thereafter, the respondent came to know that she had gone to her parents' home. When the respondent lodged a police complaint, she had sent back the child through her relatives to the respondent and thereafter, the respondent had been taking care of the child. The respondent also filed O.P.No.34 of 2003 before the Family Court at Madurai for divorce. The properties were purchased solely for the benefit of the respondent from the funds possessed by him. He had been maintaining the properties and the documents relating to all the properties which are in his possession. The properties were purchased in the name of the appellant since an Astrologer had advised the respondent not to purchase any property in his name. Further, he had purchased the properties in his name to avoid payment of wealth tax. Hence, he filed the suit.

4. The appellant filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. She had denied specifically the averments that she had association with a third person prior to marriage. She had stated that the properties were purchased out of the funds given by her father, who was well to do and the respondent had not contributed any money for the purchase of the properties in her name. She was a dutiful wife and all the allegations accusing her of being irresponsible were invented for the purpose of the suit.

5. Before the Trial Court, the respondent examined 6 witnesses and had marked Exs.P.1 to P.31. The appellant examined 2 witnesses on her side and she did not mark any document. The Trial Court framed 6 issues and held in favour of the respondent in all the 6 issues. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed the above appeal.

6(a). The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the properties were purchased in the name of the appellant by the appellant's father. The respondent had not contributed in any manner for the purchase of the properties.

(b) In any case, since the properties were purchased in the name of the appellant, who is the wife, there is a presumpt