A suit can be filed for joint ownership of properties across different jurisdictions if based on the same cause of action, and the burden of proof in benami claims lies with the accusing party.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 96 of the CPC has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 465 of 2017 Shailesh Kumar versus Smt. Vibha Gupta, against judgment and decree dated 4.5.2022 passed by the ACJM Court no. 3, Gautam Buddha Nagar, whereby the plaintiff 's suit has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that, one of the immovable property regarding which relief has been claimed by the plaintiff, was situated in District Auraiya, which was outside the jurisdiction of the Court and further, the plaintiff had not claimed relief of cancellation of lease deed executed in favour of the defendant by the Noida.

2. Factual matrix is that the plaintiff – appellant Shailesh Kumar filed O.S. no.465 of 2017 against the defendant Smt. Vibha Gupta with the averments that plaintiff was a freelance journalist by profession, who published weekly newspaper 'Cyber Infosis'. The defendant's second marriage was solemnised with the plaintiff on 4.3.2000 as per the rights and rituals of Arya Samaj in Noida. The defendants first marriage was solemnised with Rishindra Jai Piparsaniya son of unknown, resident of Chattarpur, Madhya Pradesh, out of that wedlock a son Shishil Kumar was born. The defendant in furtherance of criminal conspiracy by disclosing that she was widow, solemnised marriage with the plaintiff and refused to bear children and emotionally pressurised him for adopting her 10-year-old son, from her previous marriage. In deference to the defendant's wishes, the plaintiff performed his duties as husband and father, for the sake of happy marital life, did not procreate any children from the wedlock with the defendant and agreed to adopt the son of the defendant from a previous marriage, as his heir.

3. The plaintiff further averred that since he was not having any fixed source of income, from the savings made from his income, for securing the future of his family, he applied for a plot, for publication of his newspaper in institutional category of a scheme of Noida, through application no. 369, registration number 18/2 dated 15.1.2003, accompanied with processing fees of Rs. 5000, which was paid by pay 5000, which was paid by pay order no. 895834 dated 15.1.2003 and also deposited 10% of the estimated cost of the plot amounting to rupees 1,65,000 through demand draft with the State Bank of Patiala, Noida Branch on 15.1.2003.

4. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant on the pretext of her son's future, began to emotionally pressurise him and compelled him for getting allotment of the above plot in her favour. Thereafter, the plaintiff in order to get the allotment in favour of the defendant, moved an application supported by an affidavit, before Noida, on the basis of which lease deed of plot number C – 20/6B, area 350 yd² in sector – 62, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar was executed in favour of the defendant by Noida on 6.6.2003.

5. The plaintiff further averred that since the defendant was previously married and not taken divorce from her previous husband as such, in order to avoid any legal complication, the defendant began to write the name of her father in all the documents, in place of her husband- plaintiff.

6. The plaintiff further averred that defendant pressurised him on the pretext that if the plot was allotted in the name of plaintiff then if, some thing untoward happened to him, then the plaintiff’s siblings will claim the plot, which will harm the financial and legal interests of her son. Due to this pressure, in order t