Cohabitation without legal marriage does not confer inheritance rights under Hindu Succession Act; claims of ownership under the Benami Transactions Act must meet strict legal requirements.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

These appeals are filed by the Defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2018, passed in O.S.No.136/2009, by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Belagavi.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit against for the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court and the same is challenged by defendant No.1(c) in RFA.No.100194/2019 and defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in RFA.No.100575/2019.

4. Brief facts of the case of both the parties before the trial Court are as under:

5. It is a case of plaintiff that one Miss.Shanta Nageshrao Bhosale was sister of the plaintiffs. During her lifetime, initially she was working as Headmistress in Maratha Mandal's High School at Belagavi. Later on she was promoted and appointed as Principal of Maratha Mandal Composite Pre-University College, Belagavi. From the salary income earned by her, she purchased suit ‘A’ schedule property, invested in fixed deposit and PPF Account etc., She was also getting pension. She had invested part of her earnings in M/s. Hind Engineering Work. The said particulars are mentioned in plaint ‘B’schedule property.

6. Miss. Shanta Nageshrao Bhosale was not married with the defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 was not at all related to her in any way. The said Shanta was earning salary of Rs.9,110/- per month and she alone was residing in a flat situated at Angol road at Belagavi.

7. It is further contention of the plaintiffs that the said Shanta died at Belagavi on 30.06.2003, leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs. Except the plaintiffs, there are no other legal heirs to said Shanta. After the death of Shanta Plaintiffs obtained her death certificate and at that time they came to know that her name was mentioned as ‘Shanta Shankarao Kakatkar’ in the death extract. On further inquiry plaintiffs came to know that deceased defendant No.1 after death of Shanta filed an application in the City Corporation of Belagavi as well as Thasildar Office and got mutated revenue records of plaint ‘A’ schedule in his name. He also applied to the banks and withdrew the amount deposited in the name of deceased Shanta. The plaintiffs approached defendant No.1 and requested to return the said amount. Defendant No.1 refused to refund the same. Hence, plaintiffs filed a suit seeking for the relief as prayed in the suit.

8. Defendant No.1 in his written statement contended that Shanta was serving in Maratha Mandal High School as a Headmistress. She was a member of the Maratha Mandal. Initially both were friends; thereafter they had personal relationship and both of them were living together as a husband and wife. They had close intimacy. Defendant No.1 out of love and affection on Shanta he purchased a flat in an Apartment at Belagavi for accommodating Shanta. Till her death, she was residing in the said house along with the defendant No.1. The said property was purchased in the name of Shanta and he funded for purchase of the said property. He also contended the he purchased other plaint ‘A’ schedule properties from his funds in the name of Shanta.

9. Defendant No.1 further contended that the earnings of Shanta was very meager. Earlier she was teacher and at the end of her service, she was a Principal. Her income was not sufficient to maintain herself. Therefore all the movable and immovable properties mentioned in plaint A and B schedule properties are purchased from the funds contributed by defe