The ownership presumption in favor of the registered property holder is significant in disputes over marital property, particularly regarding the burden of proof.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the husband against the wife for declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property and for injunction, was dismissed by the Family Court. He is in appeal.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 05.03.1989. It is the plaintiff's case that he was employed abroad and while so, utilising his earnings the plaint schedule property was purchased under Ext.A1 Sale Deed in the name of the wife. The consideration for Ext.A1 proceeded from him. The relationship between the parties got strained. The OP was filed for declaration of husband's title over the property and for injunction against alienation.

3. The wife filed objections denying the husband's claim that Ext.A1 Sale Deed was taken utilising the funds provided by him. It was alleged that the gold ornaments and patrimony entrusted to the husband at the time of marriage was misappropriated by the husband. It was alleged that the husband did not even maintain the wife and their children. According to her, Ext.A1 property was purchased with the funds provided by her parents.

4. The Family Court found that the husband failed to prove that Ext.A1 purchase was utilising the funds provided by him, and accordingly dismissed the original petition.

5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. Ext.A1 Sale Deed is in the name of the wife.

It is the claim of the husband that the consideration for Ext.A1 was provided by him while he was working in the Gulf countries. Ext.A1 happened to be in the name of wife since he was abroad, is the contention. However, no documents were produced to prove that he had provided the funds for the purchase of Ext.A1 sale. If money was sent from abroad for the purchase of property, then it would have been definitely evidenced by records. However, no such documents are produced. The husband while examined as PW1, in his cross examination deposed thus;

“Q. വസ(cid:4)(cid:3) കള(cid:7)ല(cid:9) വ(cid:10) (cid:9)ങ(cid:4)വ(cid:9)ൻ source?

A . എന(cid:15)ള(cid:16) account ഇൽ ന(cid:19)ന(cid:4)(cid:10) നനര(cid:19)ട ത(cid:15) (cid:4) ക ള(cid:26)ട(cid:4)ത(cid:4)

ളക(cid:9)ട(cid:4)ത.”(cid:4)

Withdrawing amounts and handing it over would be possible only if he was available at station. However it is his case that he was abroad. If he was at station, there is no reason why Ext.A1 was taken in the name of the wife. In fact his contention is that Ext.A1 was taken in the name of the wife since he was abroad. At any rate, if the amounts were withdrawn from the accounts, it could have been proved by production of the statement of accounts from the bank. As noticed, there is no such evidence. In the light thereof, it can only be concluded that the Family Court was right in having held that the husband has failed to prove that the funds for the purchase of Ext.A1 was provided by him.

7. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the wife has failed to produce any evidence to show that she purchased the property with her funds, as noticed supra, the document stands in her name. There is a presumption in her favour that the property was purchased by her. The burden is on the husband, who claims that it was he who expended the money to purchase the property. As noticed supra, he has thoroughly failed in the said regard. Therefore the argument has no force.

There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-