The property standing in a woman's name is presumed to be her absolute property under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, unless credible contrary evidence is provided.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular First Appeal is preferred by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2023 in OS No. 5964 of 2015 on the file of XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH6) (‘the trial Court’ for short) whereby the trial Court partly decreed the suit for declaration and possession in favour of the plaintiff.

BRIEF FACTS

PLAINT AVERMENTS

2. The suit property is mentioned as property bearing site No. 2, first floor. The plaintiffs averred that the suit schedule property was the self acquired property of plaintiff No. 1. It was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 30.11.1992 from the original owner out of her own earnings while she was employed abroad in Kuwait. After purchase, she has constructed a three storied RCC building out of her own earnings. The first defendant, being her son, was permitted to occupy the first floor, while the ground floor was let out to a tenant and plaintiff No. 1 resided in the second floor. It is further pleaded that the first defendant and his wife (defendant No. 2) gradually became hostile, refused to vacate and began asserting ownership. Plaintiff No. 1 had executed registered gift deeds in favour of her daughters/plaintiffs No. 2 to 4, thereby transferring her title to them. Despite repeated requests the defendants failed to deliver possession. The suit was therefore filed seeking declaration that plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 are the absolute owners and recovery of vacant possession of the first floor and the mesne profits/ damages of Rs.5,000/- per month for unauthorised occupation.

Written statement averments

3. The defendants denied the plaint allegations and contended that the entire sale consideration and construction costs were provided by the first defendant out of his own earnings. It was asserted that from 1972 to 1985 he was employed in Bengaluru and thereafter at Kuwait, and that the suit property though standing in the name of his mother, was benami, purchased with his funds. It was contended that the plaintiff No.1, who worked only for 3 years as an Ayah could not have saved enough to purchase property worth Rs.50,000/- in 1992 and build a three storied house. The defendants further contended that the suit schedule property is the only shelter for their livelihood and the suit is filed with an ulterior motive to deprive the right of the defendants over the suit property.

4. The trial Court upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 had proved their ownership and the defendants were only in permissive possession. The Court found that the sale deed - Exhibit P1, katha, tax receipts and employment records clearly show that the property was purchased in the name of plaintiff No. 1 and she possessed sufficient independent means from her service in Kuwait from 1979 to 1991. The receipt produced by the defendants - Exhibit D3 to D5 were found unreliable, being unproved by any builder or supporting evidence, and their dates did not correlate with the purchase of 1992. The trial Court noted that the defendants had produced no document showing bank's transfer or remittance to the vendor or contractor and that Exhibit D2 (beneficiary card), did not establish contribution. The trial Court concluded that Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘the HAS’ for short) was applicable to reinforce the principle that the property standing in the woman's name is her absolute property and further held that the registered gift deeds - Exhibits P14 and P15 in favour of the daughters were valid and binding, and that the defendants possession, having been originally permissive. The claim of damages was however disallowed for want of proof. By the judgment and decree, the trial Court partly