JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated

22.09.2016 passed in A.S.No.38 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2014 passed in O.S.No.39 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai. 2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.39 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the suit property was purchased from the funds of plaintiff and directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in O.S.No.39 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai.

4. Case of the plaintiff in brief:

The plaintiff and the defendant are husband and wife, they married on

12.04.1987 and they lived together from 1987 to 2008. Out of wedlock, one female child was born. The plaintiff was working in Dubai and used to send money to the defendant. The defendant has no income and she always depended on the plaintiff. The suit property was purchased in the name of the defendant out of funds sent by the plaintiff with the condition that the defendant should transfer the suit property to the plaintiff whenever it is required. During the joint living, the plaintiff has given more than 25 lakhs and 60 sovereigns of gold jewels to the defendant. But the defendant acted on her own ways. Hence, a panchayat was held on 12.01.2005. In the presence of panchayatdars, the defendant executed a document admitting that the suit property was purchased in her name under promise that she would transfer the property in favour of the plaintiff on his demand. On 21.03.2010 the plaintiff returned to India from Dubai and asked to execute the sale deed. But the defendant uttered that she would sell the property to some other third party. Therefore, the plaintiff laid the suit.

5. Case of the Defendant in brief:

The defendant purchased the suit property out of her own earnings.

The plaintiff did not send any money to her. The defendant denied that the plaintiff sent Rs.25 lakhs and gave 60 sovereigns of gold to her. The defendant is illiterate. There was no panchayat held on 12.01.2005 and the defendant had not executed any deed (aatharavu pathiram). The deed would have been forged fraudulently by the plaintiff. 6. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

''(1) Whether the suit property was purchased out of income of the plaintiff?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of mandatory injunction to execute sale deed in his favour?

(4) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?''

7. During trial, on the plaintiff's side, four witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked 8 exhibits as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8. On the defendant's side, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B.1 alone was marked.

8. After hearing both, the learned District Munsif, Devakottai, concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that he sent money to the defendant and out of which the defendant purchased the suit property and dismissed the suit by passing judgment and decree dated 03.07.2014. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.39 of 2010, the plaintiff preferred the Civil Appeal in A.S.No.38 of 2014 before the Subordinate Court, Devakottai. The first Appellate Court after hearing both and after perusing records held that the suit property was purchased by the defendant out of money sent by the plaintiff and passed judgment dated 22.09.2016 allowing the appeal in A.S.No.38 of 2014 by reversing the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.39 of 2010.

10. Challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the defendant preferred this Second Appeal and the same has been admitted for file on 02.03.2017 on the following substantial question of