A property held jointly by spouses is presumed to have equal ownership unless evidence of unequal contribution is established, prohibiting claims under benami transactions without legal backing.

JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed by the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.328 of 2019, dated 07.01.2023, granting a preliminary decree declaring the plaintiff’s half share in the suit property, the present appeal has been filed by the defendant in the suit.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. The plaintiff is the husband and the defendant is his wife.

3.The plaintiff’s case, in brief, is as follows :

The marriage between the plaintiff and defendant was solemnised on 28.05.1990. Out of the wedlock, a son namely S.Prithviraj was born to them, who was aged about 23 years at the time of disposal of the suit and was pursuing his medical course. The couple also adopted a daughter namely S.Tejaswani, who was aged about 18 years at the time of disposal of the suit. Initially, the marital life was cordial and both husband and wife jointly purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 08.06.2000 bearing Doc.No.1135 of 2000 on the file of the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Periamet, for a total consideration of Rs.16,00,000/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that, both the husband and wife contributed equally for the purchase of the suit property. After the purchase, both were in possession of the property. When the matter stood thus, recently, the matrimonial relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant became strained, as the defendant assumed hostile attitude towards the plaintiff and started threatening the plaintiff to hand over his half share in the suit property. Besides, she has lodged false complaint under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on 09.09.2019. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, taking advantage of the strained relationship, the defendant is trying to grab the property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition claiming his half share in the suit property.

4.The defendant, in her written statement, admitting the marriage, contended that she is a Doctor by profession and practising in Apollo Hospital, Chennai. It is her contention that, though, at the time of marriage, it was informed that the plaintiff was a B.E. Graduate in Mechanical Engineering, later, she found that to be false. The plaintiff was working in a private concern for a meagre salary at the time of marriage. According to the defendant, only her father has spent huge money towards marriage expenses and also gave sridhana. Besides, the plaintiff was addicted to liquor. It is her contention that she was subjected to cruelty and torture by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, her father Dr.N.Ramadas died on 08.10.2000. After his death, her mother Anuradha has paid the money for purchasing the suit property. As the plaintiff pressurized the defendant, at the request made to the defendant’s mother, the suit property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant. That apart, the defendant has also availed loan from HSBC Bank for purchasing the property. The loan was fully repaid by the defendant out of her professional income. The total consideration of the property was Rs.16,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was paid by the defendant from her Andhra Bank Savings Account and the balance of Rs.9,50,000/- was paid through housing loan availed from HSBC Bank, Chennai and the entire amount was repaid by the de