Property shares determined by proven financial contributions, not equal presumption when evidence exists.

Judgment :

C.V.Karthikeyan J.

The first defendant in O.S.No.98 of 2009 on the file of Additional District Court, Chengalpattu, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 26.10.2016, is the appellant herein.

2. The suit in O.S.No.98 of 2009 had been filed by the respondent, who is the husband of the appellant herein, seeking a preliminary decree for partition of 3/4^th share in the schedule mentioned property and for consequential reliefs. The schedule mentioned property was land and building in Plot No.1419 measuring 3600 sq.ft. with a building in the Ground Floor and First Floor in Ram Nagar North Extn. II Street, Madipakkam, Chennai.

3. In the plaint, it had been contended that the plaintiff/respondent herein was the owner of the schedule mentioned property, having purchased the same jointly along with the defendant/appellant herein for valid sale consideration by a sale deed, dated 28.10.2003, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Velachery. He contended that subsequently he had put up construction over the said property. He also obtained loan from Corporation Bank to the tune of Rs.8.00 lakhs. He claimed that he also borrowed from private sources. He stated that after purchase of the land, a building was constructed to an area of 1600 sq.ft. in the first floor and 1500 sq.ft. in the ground floor. It was further stated that the appellant herein had contributed a sum of Rs.13.00 lakhs through cheques and that was her only contribution at the time of purchase of the land. He claimed that he had contributed substantially towards the purchase of the land and putting up construction and hence he should be declared to be entitled to 3/4th of the value of land and building. It was, under the said circumstances, that the suit was instituted.

4. The appellant herein, in her capacity as first defendant, had filed written statement. In her written statement, she denied the allegations about the contribution of respondent towards purchase of the land and also towards putting up construction. It was stated that she had married the respondent in the year 1987 and, at that time, she was employed in UTI Mutual Fund. It had also been stated that she had maintained the entire family of the respondent out of her income. She further stated that she had obtained loan from Reserve Bank Employees Co-operative Society and the said loan amount was utilised by the respondent for purchasing the property in his name. It was also stated that the respondent expressed inclination to obtain loan from Corporation Bank for construction of house and stipulated that the property was to be in his name. After obtaining loan from Corporation Bank, the respondent defaulted in the repayment of the loan. The appellant was issued with a SARFAESI notice. She took steps to repay the said loan amount. She claimed that the respondent was only a name lender for the purpose of loan and stated that he had not substantially contributed for the purchase of the property.

5. She had further stated that the respondent had disposed of the entire property at Thirunindravur (Tinnanur) without her knowledge. She, therefore, denied that the respondent was entitled to 3/4th share in the suit schedule property. She claimed that the property vested entirely with her and that the respondent was not entitled for partition with respect to the suit schedule property, leave alone 3/4th share.

6. A rejoinder was filed by the respondent herein. The respondent claimed that permission had been obtained from the Head Office to sell the property at Tinnanur (Thirunindravur) and the same was sanctioned by the Head Office. It was contended that only after obtaining such sanction, he sold the property for a sum of Rs.9.00 lakhs and, out of the said amount, he paid Rs.3.00 lakhs to the bank towards discharge of the existing debt for t