Disputes pertaining to property rights between spouses fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts, and judgments made by courts lacking inherent jurisdiction are nullities.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 96 CPC against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.10.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No.10, Ghaziabad in O.S. No.544 of 2020 ( Sachin Kumar Vs. Smt. Nidhi Dohre and another ), whereby the plaintiff's suit for the relief of mandatory injunction for directing the defendant No.2 Agrawal Associates (Promoters) Ltd, for executing the sale deed of the disputed property solely in favour of the plaintiff and for restraining the estranged wife-defendant No.1 from creating any hindrance, has been dismissed.

2. The appeal is admitted.

3. The factual matrix is that the plaintiff-appellant, Sachin Kumar, and defendant No.1, Smt. Nidhi Dohre, are husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on 14.02.2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, they resided at Flat No. C-306, Neelgiri Apartment, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the year 2017 he booked flat No. K/C.A.1002, having a carpet area of 723.761 square feet, Type-4, in Block (A) on the tenth floor in Aditya World City, village Shahpur Bamheta, Ghaziabad, for a total consideration of Rs.26,11,607/- from defendant No.2. It was further averred that, since defendant No.1 was his wife, due to love and affection, he included her as a joint/benami owner of the said flat at the time of booking of the flat. Accordingly, an advance amount of Rs.1,46,250/- was paid through cheque on 15.11.2017, and thereafter, on 21.11.2017, the remaining amount was paid from the plaintiff’s bank account No. 072201501425 to defendant No.2. Subsequently, on 06.01.2018, an allotment letter with respect to the flat, hereinafter referred to as disputed property, was issued by defendant No.2.

5. It was further averred that the disputed property was purchased by obtaining a loan from Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, Delhi, in which defendant no. 1 was co-borrower, since in the allotment letter she was benami joint owner. It was further averred that on 17.02.2018, an amount of Rs.22,56,536/- was paid by cheque/DD No. 663631, and further, on 27.03.2018, an amount of Rs.1,33,867/- was paid by cheque/DD No. 699666 to defendant No.2 by plaintiff. It was also averred that the housing loan was being repaid by the plaintiff alone through EMIs of Rs.22,097/-, from his salary account.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that his wife/defendant No.1 has not paid any amount towards the purchase of the disputed property and that only due to love and affection he included her as a benami co-owner at the time of allotment, whereas he is the real and absolute owner of the property. Therefore, he claims entitlement to have the sale deed of the disputed property executed solely in his favour.

7. It was further averred that subsequently the intention of defendant No.1 turned malafide and ideological differences arose between the husband and wife, due to which on 05.12.2018 the defendant No.1 left the matrimonial home and deserted the plaintiff. Thereafter, criminal litigation was also initiated by the estranged wife against the plaintiff. It was also averred that the plaintiff filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which is pending before the competent court. It was also averred that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed property since 09.04.2019, which was handed by defendant no.2.

8. In this background, the plaintiff requested defendant No.2 to execute the sale deed of the disputed property solely in his favour. However, wh