IMPORTANT POINT
Joint purchasers of property are entitled to shares in proportion to their contributions unless a written contract specifies otherwise, and oral evidence cannot contradict the terms of a written agreement.

JUDGMENT :

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in O.S.No.33 of 2008.

The defendants in O.S.No.33 of 2008 on the file of the District Court, Chengalpattu are on appeal, aggrieved by a preliminary decree for partition, declaring 1/2 share of the plaintiffs in the suit property granted in the said suit.

2. The plaintiffs sued for partition, contending that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiffs and the defendants jointly under a sale deed dated 28.09.1998 from one Mr. and Mrs. Abraham. The plaintiffs would claim that the 2nd plaintiff and the 1st defendant are first cousins in as much as their mothers are sisters. The 1st defendant completed his Diploma in Plastic Technology in Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and Technology (CIPET), Chennai and married 2nd defendant and settled down in Chennai. Though the plaintiffs would claim that the father of the 1st defendant was not a man of means and the entire education expenses was borne by the 1st defendant, the same is denied by the defendants. Those averments or allegations are unnecessary for the determination of the issues involved in the appeal. Hence, we are not narrating those averments.

3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was purchased for a consideration of Rs.23,65,000/- on 28.09.1998 from Mr. and Mrs.Abraham. A sum of Rs.12,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs towards their share of the property. The defendants availed a housing loan of Rs.14,24,587/- from State Bank of India, Ekkaduthangal Branch by mortgaging the schedule property and the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,65,000/- was paid by the Bank directly to the Vendors. It is the further plea of the plaintiffs that the defendants did not honour their commitment to repay the Bank loan and finally, the plaintiffs ended up repaying a sum of Rs.8,37,033.41/-, over and above what they are bound to repay. The plaintiffs reserved their right to sue the defendants for recovery of the said money. Relying upon the recitals in the sale deed which was marked as Ex.A3, the plaintiffs claimed that they are entitled to 25% each in the property and as such, put together, their share would be 50%.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the claim of the plaintiffs is incorrect. According to the defendants, the total consideration for the property was about Rs.41,00,000/-. As per the agreement between the defendants and the Vendors dated 23.05.1998, the defendants had paid an advance of Rs.12,00,000/- on the date of the agreement and a further sums of Rs.14,35,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- on 12.07.1998 and 14.07.1998 respectively. The balance amount of Rs.11,65,000/- was paid from and out of the housing loan availed from State Bank of India, Ekkaduthangal Branch.

5. It was agreed between the parties that the plaintiffs should repay the loan, since the defendants had paid more than 1/2 of the sale consideration even before the plaintiffs stepped into contract. It is also contended that at the instance of the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant had, through his business which he was running, imported three machineries for the purpose of business of the 1st plaintiff, costing about Rs.14,00,000/- and it was agreed between the parties to set off the share that would be available to the plaintiffs in the suit property in lieu of the said sum of Rs.14,00,000/- which was paid by the defendants. Various other transactions by way of partnership etc., were also relied upon by the defendants to show that the contribution of the plaintiffs towards purchase of the suit property was not 50% and therefore, the plaintiffs would not be entitled to 50% share.

6. On the above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues:-

i) Whether there is no cause of action for the suit as claimed by the defendants?

ii) Whether the sale deed