Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 559
TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Not disclosed, J
Arun Das v. Aparna Das
Second Appeal | T.A. No. 31 of 2015 | T.S. (P) 144 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta)
For the Respondents: Mr. D. C. Roy
A husband can purchase property in his wife's name without it being a benami transaction, provided he is the sole contributory in the transaction, which can rebut ownership presumption under Section 3(2)(a) of the Act.
Headnote:(A) Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Section 3(2)(a) - Second appeal against partition decree - Plaintiff claimed joint ownership of property bought in joint names, asserting a benami transaction - Defendant contested, alleging ownership and denial of joint purchase - Court found plaintiff had no income, supporting defendant's claim of sole ownership, thus rebutting presumption of ownership in her favor under the Act. (Paras 6, 7, 19, 40)
(B) Legal Principle - Section 3(2)(a) permits property purchase by a husband in the name of his wife; however, such transaction is rebuttable. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff instituted suit for partition of property acquired jointly post-marriage but faced opposition from husband, who claimed sole ownership and filed for divorce. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
Lower courts erroneously decreed in favor of plaintiff, failing to properly interpret the relevant provisions of the Act regarding fiduciary relationships and ownership. (Paras 10, 43)
Issues: Suit's maintainability, legal marriage status, entitlement to partition, fiduciary relationship. (Paras 5, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that including the plaintiff's name in the deed does not confer ownership in light of the husband’s proven sole contribution to the consideration for the property. (Para 11)
Result: The second appeal was allowed, reversing the decree in favor of the plaintiff, and holding the property as solely owned by the defendant.
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 Transactions is hit by Section - 3 of the Act. The learned trial Court further rejected the plea of the learned counsel appearing for the defendant that at the time of purchasing the suit land, both the plaintiff - wife and the defendant - husband were under fiduciary relationship having trust and confidence upon each other.
8. The appeal being preferred by the defendant - husband under Section - 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short), the First Appellate Court having heard the submission of the learned counsel appeari
