The court upheld that an ownership claim lacks merit if the funds alleged to establish such ownership were sent after the property was purchased.

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Appeal Suit No.69 of 2023 K.S.Vinoda Kumar, Son of Subramani No.6, Shriram Street, Dhinesh Nagar, Ayanambakkam, Chenai 600 095. .. Appellant/Plaintiff /versus/

1.Yasodha Wife of Ramakrishanan 4/234, Nakkeerar Street, Mygappair East, Chennai 37.

2.K.Nirmala Wife of Vinoda Kumar

4/234, Nakkeerar Street, Mugappair East, Chennai 37. .. Respondents/Defendants Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal order passed in O.S.No.177 of 2018, dated 14.10.2019 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.

For Appellant :Mr.S.C.Viswanth For Respondents :Mr.K.Premkumar for R1 and R2 JUDGMENT This appeal suit is directed against the dismissal of O.S.No.177 of

2018 preferred by the appellant herein.

2. The appellant is the husband of the second respondent. The first respondent is the mother of the second respondent.

3. The case of the appellant as found in the plaint is that the suit schedule property was purchased from out of the money sent by him through his earnings from Abroad and the property was improved from the funds sent by him to his wife. He had also given a power of attorney to his wife on 07.02.2013 to invest the money sent by him from Abroad. As far as the suit property is concerned which is the vacant housing plot purchased by the first respondent from his money, contrary to the understanding, instead of transferring the property in his name, had settled the property in the name of her daughter the second respondent vide, deed of settlement dated 08.03.2013. Further case of the appellant is that he had been sending money to his wife, the second respondent since 2009. However, she has not submitted the account but has been spending it lavishly. He has also alleged that the second respondent is having illegal intimacy with one Rajaram and in this connection, a criminal case been registered. It is also stated in the plaint that the property, bearing plot No.6, Sri Dinesh Nagar Layout measuring 2406 sq.ft. purchased by the second respondent as power of attorney of the plaintiff. Suit for declaration filed by him and pending in O.S.No.80 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Judge-II, Poonamallee.

4. With these averments, the suit has been laid for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner, having right, title and interest over the suit property and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents servants and others from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and also for a declaration that the alleged settlement deed dated 08.03.2013 executed by the first defendant to and in favour of second defendant vide document No1589/2013 which was registered with SRO at Virugambakkam in respect of the suit property as null and void and it is not binding on the plaintiff and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants and others authorised by them from in any way alienating or encumbering the suit properties to third parties and for costs of this suit.

5. The respondents had remained exparte before the trial Court. The appellant been examined as PW-1. To substantiate the pleadings, he has marked 18 documents. The trial Court found that the suit property was purchased by the first respondent on 30.06.1993 from one M.P.Vinayagam and the first respondent has settled the property in favour of her daughter vide settlement deed dated 08.03.2013. Even according to the plaintiff/appellant, he went abroad in the year 2009 and was sending money through bank to the account of his wife the second respondent. Therefore, even if Ex.A10 to Ex.A18 the bank transactions are to be accepted, money was send only to the wife, the second respondent from and after the y