J U D G M E N T

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.53 of 2011 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Coimbatore is the appellant in this appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal are referred to as per their litigative status in the suit as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendants’.

3. The Plaintiff has instituted the suit in O.S. No.53 of 2011 praying to direct the first defendant, who is none other than his wife, to repay the sum of Rs.17,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit till realization; to create a charge over the suit property belonging to the first defendant until the suit amount is settled in full to the plaintiff; to grant permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, her men, agents and anybody from claiming right through her from in any manner whatsoever and not to obstruct the plaintiff from collecting rent from the tenants till the suit amount is settled to the plaintiff and for costs.

4. The plaint averments, in short, are succinctly narrated hereunder:

(i) According to the plaintiff, he married the first defendant on

16.11.2007 at CM Thirumana Mahal, Ganapathy, Coimbatore. At the time of marriage, the parents of the first defendant have presented 100 sovereigns of gold jewels to her, besides 20 sovereigns of gold jewels to him. However, immediately after the marriage, 20 sovereigns of gold jewels presented to the plaintiff was kept by the mother of the first defendant by citing certain reasons and the plaintiff also did not object to it.

(ii)The plaint further proceeds that within a short period after the marriage, the first defendant tactfully lured him to stay in her parents house at Ganapathy and the plaintiff also shifted there. At this stage, the first defendant, who was hitherto employed in L & T company, resigned her employment and remained in her house. During such stay of the plaintiff and first defendant, the mother of the plaintiff requested to lend her Rs.4,70,000/- to settle her debts. The plaintiff also paid to the mother of the first defendant Rs.4,70,000/- under due acknowledgement. Further, the property owned by the first defendant’s father measuring 1645 square feet was inherited by the first defendant, her mother and brother, while the grand mother of the first defendant, who is also having a share in it, relinquished it by way of a release deed, dated 10.03.2003. When the plaintiff insisted his mother-in-law to repay the sum of Rs.4,70,000/- the first defendant’s mother and brother executed a release deed on 06.06.2008 to the first defendant by which the first defendant became entitled to the entire extent of land measuring 1645 square feet. The Plaintiff and first defendant were also put in possession of the property. Later, the plaintiff came to know that the said property was mortgaged but the family of the first defendant did not settle it, therefore, the plaintiff, out of his own fund, discharged the mortgaged amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

(iii) The plaintiff submits that he intended to develop the property by putting up a superstructure. For this purpose, plaintiff and first defendant submitted a joint application dated 22.12.2008 to ICICI Bank and availed a loan of Rs.10,73,459/- and the bank initially disbursed Rs.3,90,226/-. It was the plaintiff who paid the loan amount every month to the bank. Further, to meet the construction expenses, he availed Rs.5,50,000/- from City Finance and it was also paid by him. The plaintiff also settled the loan amount of Rs.4,70,000/- which he paid to the mother of the first defendant.

(iv) According to the plaintiff, the first defendant become pregnant and delivered a female child on 08.07.2009. The female child had some disability identified as shoulder dystocia for which special treatment was given by the plaintiff. Further, on 02.04.2010, the first defendant, along with her brother forcibly entered into the plaintiff’s house with henchmen and took away all th