2023 Supreme(Mad) 2946

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Kannaian Naidu (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Kamsala Ammal @ Banumathi – Respondent
S.A. No. 59 of 2016, Cross Objection No. 26 of 2017
Decided On : 21-06-2023

Headnote:

HUSBAND AND WIFE - PROPERTY - BENAMI TRANSACTION - CONTRIBUTION OF WIFE - EQUAL SHARE - PRESUMPTION - HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE ENTITLED TO EQUAL SHARE IN THE PROPERTY PURCHASED FROM AND OUT OF THE JOINT CONTRIBUTION MADE BY BOTH OF THEM.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a husband, filed a suit against his wife, the 1st defendant, for permanent injunction against the defendants herein. The plaintiff alleged that the suit properties 1 to 4 were purchased by the 1st defendant using the funds of the plaintiff which had swollen to huge proportions. The 1st defendant denied the allegations and pleaded that she purchased the suit properties with her funds by selling her jewels and other assets. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff stating that all the suit properties belong to the 1st plaintiff and he is the true owner and entitled to his title to the suit properties. The lower appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and thereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 15.09.2005 has been set aside with regard to items 3, 4 and 5 of the suit properties and confirmed in respect of remain properties.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the 1st defendant/wife has also contributed equally, though not directly but indirectly by way of looking after the home and taking care of the family for more than a decade and managing the household chores, thereby releasing the husband for gainful employment and made his stay comfortable in abroad and also to reduce the expenses and save the money for future benefit of the family including for purchasing of the assets. Though the properties purchased in the name of the 1st defendant, she alone cannot claim exclusive right over the properties merely because the title deed is in her name since the documentary evidence would establish that the 1st defendant/wife purchased the properties out of the direct financial contribution of the plaintiff also. Likewise, the plaintiff also cannot claim absolute right merely on the basis that he had sent the money to purchase the properties and the 1st defendant is only holding the property in trust as ostensible title over the properties in fiduciary capacity, as already discussed based on Ex.A1 to Ex.A11, this Court arrives at the conclusion that since Item Nos. 1 and 2 have been purchased from and out joint contribution of spouses, viz. the plaintiff by earning and the 1st defendant indirectly by way of her invaluable services as home maker, whereby reducing the expenses of her husband which lead her husband to save more and this way the wife had contributed indirectly to purchase the property item Nos. 1 and 2, which aspect cannot be ignored as the same could be decided based on Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. These aspects were not considered by the first appellate Court. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to hold both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are entitled to equal shares in the present facts of the case over the Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the schedule mentioned properties and to that extent the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside.

Issues: 1. Whether the lower appellate court erred in law in holding that the 3rd item of the suit properties was purchased by the 1st defendant by pledging her jewels and that she is the owner of the said property on mere surmises and conjectures without properly considering and appreciating Ex.A14 and Ex. A15 letters admittedly sent by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff in proper perspective? 2. Whether the lower appellate court erred in law and misdirected itself in holding that the 4th item of the suit properties belong to the 1st defendant merely because the sale deed stands in her name, without considering the admitted fact that the plaintiff was working abroad and sending money to the 1st defendant from 1983-1994, that the suit properties, items 1 to 4 were purchased in the name of the 1st defendant benami out of the money sent by the plaintiff while he was in abroad and that the plaintiff took possession and managed the said properties as his own properties after returning from abroad and particularly when the 1st defendant failed to prove that she had sufficient funds of her own to purchase the 4th item of the suit properties. 3. Whether the lower appellate court erred in law in holding that the jewels in the 5th item locker were purchased by the plaintiff for the benefit of the 1st defendant and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the same without there being any such pleading or evidence by the 1st defendant particularly when the 1st defendant claimed the same as of her own and when the relationship of husband and wife between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant came to an end by dissolution of the marriage? 4. Whether the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court erred in overlooking the evidence of the deceased Kannaiah, that the individual property of the appellant herein received in the partition deed dated 05.03.1968 Exhibit B8 was sold to generate the funds for the overseas employment of the deceased Kannaiah? 5. Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in law and overlooked the fact that it was the liability and onus of the deceased Kannaiah, to disprove the presumption under the Benami Act that the property purchased in the name of the appellant was not intended for her benefit, ought to have inferred that the suit schedule mentioned properties (1) & (2) were intended for the benefit of the appellant acknowledging the money borrowed from the appellant from and out of the sale proceeds to her share of the ancestral property? 6. Whether the contribution made by the 1st defendant/wife towards acquisition of family assets (Item Nos. I & II to the schedule property) by performing their domestic chores, looking after home and family/caring for the family, taking care of the children etc, thereby releasing her husband for gainful employment would be a factor in determining the rights in acquiring the property, was considered by the courts below in proper perspective? 7. Whether Item Nos. I & II of the schedule properties were purchased through the joint effort of the plaintiff/husband and 1st defendant/wife as the same would be a factor in determining the parties right in the schedule mentioned property?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the 1st defendant/wife has also contributed equally, though not directly but indirectly by way of looking after the home and taking care of the family for more than a decade and managing the household chores, thereby releasing the husband for gainful employment and made his stay comfortable in abroad and also to reduce the expenses and save the money for future benefit of the family including for purchasing of the assets. Though the properties purchased in the name of the 1st defendant, she alone cannot claim exclusive right over the properties merely because the title deed is in her name since the documentary evidence would establish that the 1st defendant/wife purchased the properties out of the direct financial contribution of the plaintiff also. Likewise, the plaintiff also cannot claim absolute right merely on the basis that he had sent the money to purchase the properties and the 1st defendant is only holding the property in trust as ostensible title over the properties in fiduciary capacity, as already discussed based on Ex.A1 to Ex.A11, this Court arrives at the conclusion that since Item Nos. 1 and 2 have been purchased from and out joint contribution of spouses, viz. the plaintiff by earning and the 1st defendant indirectly by way of her invaluable services as home maker, whereby reducing the expenses of her husband which lead her husband to save more and this way the wife had contributed indirectly to purchase the property item Nos. 1 and 2, which aspect cannot be ignored as the same could be decided based on Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. These aspects were not considered by the first appellate Court. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to hold both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are entitled to equal shares in the present facts of the case over the Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the schedule mentioned properties and to that extent the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside.

Final Decision: The Second Appeal and the Cross Objection are partly allowed and accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2015 in A.S. No. 1 of 2007 passed by the first appellate Court, is modified to the extent stated above. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout.