A registered sale deed in joint names of spouses creates a presumption of equal ownership. Payment of the entire purchase price by one spouse is not determinative of a benami transaction and does not automatically rebut the presumption of joint title without evidence of a trust relationship.

JUDGMENT

Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

This Mat. Appeal is preferred by the 1st respondent/wife in O.P.No.224 of 2021 that was filed by her husband before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Mat. Appeal are as follows:

The marriage between the appellant and the 1st respondent was contracted on 03.02.2011 as per Mohammedan Personal law. It was the case of the 1st respondent herein that the appellant/wife hailed from a very poor family and he was meeting all the expenses during their married life. It was his case that he was a driver by profession and he had travelled to the Gulf countries in search of employment and used to visit his family in India once in a year. In the year 2017, he had entered into a sale agreement with one Muhammed Shah for purchase of 2.02 Ares of property and building therein in Sy. No.566/4A/2/11/11 of Pallarimangalam Village for a total consideration of Rs.13,25,000/-. After paying the advance sale consideration of Rs.75,000/-, the property was purchased on 01.01.2018 as per Sale deed No.03/2018 of Pothanicad SRO. The balance sale consideration of Rs.12,50,000/- was paid by him to the vendor of the property after receiving the said amount from his father. It was stated that although the entire sale consideration for the property was paid by him, he had purchased the property in the joint name of himself and his wife, the appellant herein. It was his case that the appellant's name was included in the sale deed as a 'trustee' and in fiduciary capacity, since she had not contributed any money towards the sale consideration.

3. The 1^st respondent/husband went on to aver that the appellant herein was living in adultery with the 2nd respondent herein and she had virtually deserted the 1st respondent, and the matrimonial tie between them had permanently come to an end. At that stage, when he approached the appellant with a request to re-convey the property purchased by him in their joint names, to him, she refused to comply. It was under those circumstances that he was constrained to prefer the original petition seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession of the said property.

4. The appellant filed detailed objection to the original petition filed by the 1st respondent/husband. While she admitted the marriage as also the factum of the sale deed having been executed on 01.01.2018 in the joint names of her and her husband, the 1st respondent herein, she denied the averment that she belonged to a poor family and that the 1st respondent was meeting all the expenses of herself and her children. It was also her contention that the entire sale consideration for the property was not met by the 1st respondent/husband, but that she had also contributed substantially to the purchase of the said property by using cash and gold ornaments that were given to her by her family at the time of marriage. It was also her case that her father had given an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the 1st respondent, which he had spent entirely for his personal needs. Her averment that she had a legitimate claim over the property in question was based on her contention that she had also contributed substantially towards the purchase price of the said property.

5. Before the court below, the 1st respondent/husband led evidence through PW1, PW2 and PW3. Exts.A1 to A10 were also marked on his side. The appellant gave evidence as RW1 and Ext.X1 was also marked.

6. The court below, after perusing the evidence on record, found that the 1st respondent/husband had proved that the entire purchase price in respect of the property had been borne by him and disbelieved the version of the appellant herein that she had also contributed substantially towards the purchase price, by finding that she had not substantiated the said contention by adducing any evidence with regard to the same. Thereafter, based solely on the fact that the 1st respondent/husband had proved that he had paid the entire purchase