JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendant before the Courts below is the appellant before this Court challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.212 of 2014 by the I Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore which was confirmed by the III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in A.S.No.43 of 2020.

2. The facts are briefly set out herein under and the parties are referred to in the same array as before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff and the respondent are husband and wife respectively.

They jointly owned the suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is that he had entered into a sale agreement on 14.07.1994 with one V.V.Palanisamy to purchase the suit schedule property and had also paid an advance of a sum of Rs.3,000/- on the same day. It is a further case of the plaintiff that he had availed a housing loan from the LIC for the balance sale consideration and had purchased the property on 15.09.1994. Since the respondent was his wife and out of his love and affection for her, he had purchased the property in her name as well. However, the consideration comes only from the plaintiff’s salary and it was he who had been paying the loan installments every month.

The plaintiff and the defendant had a son and a daughter. However, due to certain difference of opinion they started living separately and the property could no longer be enjoyed jointly. The plaintiff has offered his share to the defendant. Since he wants a partition, he had issued a notice to which the defendant and the defendant had sent a reply refusing the partition.

4. The defendant/ wife had filed a written statement interalia denying the contentions raised by the plaintiff and would submit that she is a Government Servant from the year 1984 and prior to that she was working in a private company and the advance of Rs.3,000/- was paid by her. She would further submit that the Housing Loan was obtained jointly by the plaintiff and the defendant by mortgaging the property. She would also state that she had sold her jewels and she had also obtained a loan of a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the Staff Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society and from out of this had paid a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards the balance sale consideration on 10.09.1994. It was she who had met the registration charges which included stamp duty. Therefore, she would submit that though, the property stood in the name of both the plaintiff and the defendant it was she who had given money for the purchase.

5. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5. On the side of the defendant, she had examined herself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11.

6. However, pending the Trial there was no representation on behalf of the plaintiff and on the perusal of the documents a preliminary decree for partition was granted. Challenging the same the appellant had filed A.S.No.43 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. The learned District Judge also agreed that the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same the defendant is before this Court.

7. The defendant had claimed an exclusive right over the property by stating that she alone had contributed towards balance sale consideration as also the advance amount. In order to prove her claim she had relied upon the Ex.B.3, Ex.B.4 and Ex.B.5. The Lower Appellate Court had considered the above documents and observed as follows:-

“This court has considered the above three documents.Ex.B3 is a copy of receipt issued by a weighing agency showing the weight of gold jewels. In the same the name of defendant is not shown. The same does not show that the jewels of defendant were sold on 27.08.1994. The defendant has neither produced the original of Ex.B.3. nor has given any explanation for non production of the same. Under this circumstance this court is of the view that Ex.B3 cannot be accepted as a proof of the claim of the defendant that she sold her gold jewels and paid a por