Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 477
TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Arindam Lodh, J.
Arun Das v. Aparna Das
R. S. A. No. 18 of 2019
Property purchased by a husband in the name of his wife is presumed to be for her benefit unless proven otherwise, but if the husband provided all consideration, the presumption can be rebutted.
Headnote:(A) Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Sections 3(2)(a) and 4(3)(b) - Appeal against dismissal of partition suit - Plaintiff claimed a share in property purchased with her husband's income, asserting it was a benami transaction - Defendant disputed joint ownership, arguing property was purchased solely for his benefit. (Para 1-4, 7-10)
(B) Legal principles - Property bought in the name of a spouse shall not be treated as a benami transaction unless the contrary is proven; presumption favors the spouse unless rebutted. (Paras 19-20)
(C) Court's reasoning - The courts below misinterpreted statutory provisions; absent clear evidence of intent to create a benami transaction, the husband's claim prevailed based on his contribution to purchase price and lack of evidence from the plaintiff. (Paras 24-25)
(D)
Result: Appeal allowed, lower court's decree set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. outcome of the appeal. (Para 1 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. background of the partition suit. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. plaintiff's hardship and claim. (Para 3) |
| 4. interpretation of relevant law. (Para 7 , 14 , 20) |
| 5. procedural aspects of the legal interpretation. (Para 8 , 12 , 24 , 32) |
| 6. analysis of fiduciary relationship. (Para 9 , 22 , 26) |
| 7. defense arguments from the defendant. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. application of the old vs. new act. (Para 21 , 28 , 38) |
| 9. appellate court's considerations. (Para 39 , 43 , 44) |
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2018 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Court No.4, Agartala, West Tripura in T.A. No. 31 of 2015 dismissing the first appeal affirming the original judgment and decree dated 18.06.2015 passed in T.S. (P) 144 of 2012 by the Court of learned Civil Judge Sr. Division, Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura, decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent - plaintiff.
2. The respondent - plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) had instituted a suit for partition of the suit land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff after her marriage with the defendant they jointly purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed No.1-3742 dated 11.12.2007. The plaintiff further alleged that on 27.07.2012 her husband i.e. the respondent herein, had entered into second marriage and drove her out from her matrimonial home.
3. At the time of institution of the suit, she had been residing at her parental house with great hardship having no source of income. The plaintiff had approached the husband - defendant to partition the suit land in equal share i.e. 50:50 ratio, but, the respondent did not pay any heed to it. Hence, she had claimed partition of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint.
4. The appellant - defendant, who is the husband of the plaintiff, refuting the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff had raised the plea of maintainability in his written statement, and all the averments made by the plaintiff therein were denied. The defendant specifically denied that the suit land was jointly purchased by the plaintiff and the defendant. Rather, the defendant stated that he purchased the suit land for his own benefit, and out of their relation, he included plaintiff's name in the registered sale deed. The defendant further stated that since 2010, he filed a divorce suit against the plaintiff being number T. S (Divorce) 268 of 2012 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The defendant further denied that he entered into second marriage and drove his wife - plaintiff out of his house. The defendant further denied the right of the plaintiff to claim the suit property and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. On material proposition of above facts, which the parties are at variants, following issues were framed by the learned trial court as under:
ISSUES
1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and name?
2. Is the plaintiff legally married wife of the defendant Arun Das?
3. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for in her plaint?
4. To what other relief / reliefs the parties to the suit are entitled to get?
6. On the basis of aforesaid issues, the learned trial court recorded the evidence of the parties to the lis having produced their respective examinations - in - chief and they were accordingly cross - examined. At the closure of recording evidence, having heard the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to get her 50% share being co - owner of the suit property out of the sale deed No. 1-3742 dated 11.12.2007.
7. While deciding the issues, learned trial court had taken note of the relevant provisions of Section - 3(2)(a) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff - wife that half of the suit land being the result of Benami Transaction
