Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71734

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Dr Justice R.N.MANJULA
J.THOMAS JAYAPRABAKARAN – Appellant
Versus
MRS. R.LALITHAMBAL – Respondent
CS No. 869 of 2001

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.Balachanderan
For the Respondents: Set Ex-parte

A spouse who contributes to the acquisition and improvement of property held in the other spouse’s name is entitled to half share, and a transferee pendente lite is bound by the partition decree.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Lis pendens - Sale of property during pendency of partition suit - Effect on rights of co-owner - Transferee bound by decree - Principle in T.G.Ashok Kumar vs. Govindammal, (2010) 14 SCC 370 applied. (Paras 9, 10)

(B) Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Not applicable where property is purchased in the name of one spouse with joint contributions of both spouses - Plaintiff proved half share through documentary evidence of joint acquisition, loan, provident fund withdrawal and improvements - Defendant failed to controvert. (Paras 6, 7, 10)

(C) Partition - Co-owner’s share - Burden of proof - When defendant remains ex-parte, evidence led by plaintiff remains uncontroverted and can be accepted - Plaintiff entitled to half share in suit schedule properties. (Paras 5, 7, 11)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff and first defendant were married in 1978. Over the years, they acquired a house property and later sold it to purchase a vacant site and construct a new house, all registered in the name of the first defendant but with joint funds, including loans, plaintiff’s provident fund withdrawal, and savings. The marital relationship deteriorated, and the plaintiff was forced to leave the matrimonial home. The first defendant sold the schedule I property to the second defendant, who subsequently sold it to the third defendant during the pendency of the suit. All defendants remained ex-parte. The plaintiff sought partition and half share.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had proved his contribution to the purchase of the vacant site and construction of the house through documentary evidence (sale agreement executed jointly, loan letters mentioning husband, provident fund withdrawal). The first defendant’s failure to appear allowed the plaintiff’s evidence to stand uncontroverted. The sale during pendency of the suit to the third defendant was subject to the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the third defendant was bound by the decree. Following T.G.Ashok Kumar, the transferee pendente lite acquires no better title than the transferor had. The plaintiff was entitled to a half share in both schedule I (immovable property) and schedule II (movables) properties.

Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff had contributed to the acquisition and construction of the suit property held in the name of the first defendant, and whether the sale pendente lite to the third defendant affected the plaintiff’s right to partition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that where a spouse contributes financially to property registered in the other spouse’s name, the contributing spouse retains a beneficial interest and is entitled to a share in partition. The doctrine of lis pendens ensures that any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is subject to the outcome of the suit, and the transferee cannot claim rights beyond those of the transferor. Result : Civil Suit allowed; preliminary decree passed for half share of plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. No costs.

JUDGMENT

This Civil Suit has been filed seeking partition of the scheduled properties allotting half share to the plaintiff.

2. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff and the first defendant fell in love and got married on 27.03.1978 at C.S.I. Church, Ramanathapuram, according to Christian rites. The first defendant joined the plaintiff without bringing any property or valuables. At the time of marriage, the plaintiff was a Junior Assistant in the Office of the Sub-Employment Officer, Mandapam, Ramanad District, and the first defendant was a Junior Assistant at the Government Hospital, Chennai. The marriage was consummated, but no child was born. The plaintiff was later selected through the Banking Service Recruitment Board for the post of Clerk-cum-Typist and joined the Central Office of Indian Bank, Chennai, on 03.06.1981. The plaintiff guided the first defendant to appear for the Banking Service Recruitment Board examination for Clerk-cum-Typist and she succeeded and was posted in the Head Office of Indian Bank at Chennai in April 1984. Thereafter, the couple lived together in a rented house at Door No. 24, Akbarabad, Second Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

2.1. The plaintiff then obtained a house loan of Rs. 75,000/- from his Bank in September 1985. Using that loan and his savings, a portion of the house at Door No. 24, Akbarabad, Second Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024, was purchased in the name of the first defendant on 03.10.1985. He later obtained an additional loan of Rs. 34,200/- in February 1987 to improve the building. The plaintiff and the first defendant also spent about Rs. 70,000/- from their own earnings for further improvements. Later, they decided to sell the said house in order to obtain a larger accommodation in a better locality. Accordingly, they sold the house at Door No. 24, Akbarabad, Second Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024, during May 1991 for Rs. 4,00,000/-. Out of the sale proceeds, the outstanding Bank loan was cleared. With the remaining sale amount, they decided to purchase a vacant house site measuring 1650 sq. ft. at Major Trustpuram, Kodambakkam, from one Mr. K.M. Sambandan and on 27.03.1991, they jointly entered into an agreement to purchase a land for Rs. 3,35,000/-, paying Rs. 1,10,000/- as advance. The land, being the southern portion of Plot No. 80, T.S. No. 24, Block 24, Major Trustpuram, is described as Schedule-I in the plaint. The purchase was completed on 10.07.1991 in the name of the first defendant, using the sale proceeds of the earlier house and the plaintiff’s savings.

2.2. Since the plaintiff had already availed loan facilities from the Bank, he advised the first defendant to obtain the housing loan in her own name. The plaintiff stood as a guarantor. The first defendant obtained Rs. 1,50,000/- from the Bank and Rs. 70,000/- from IND Bank Housing Ltd. Along with the plaintiff’s savings, they constructed a ground and first floor building of about 2,300 sq. ft. on the said plot, all standing in the name of the first defendant. The plaintiff also withdrew Rs. 25,800/- from his Provident Fund in July 1996 and used it towards construction. Thus, the building was completed using Bank loan in the first defendant’s name, the plaintiff’s Provident Fund withdrawal and the couple’s joint savings.

2.3. The plaintiff and the first defendant initially led a happy married life. As the first defendant was found to be infertile, they decided to adopt a female child from the International Mission of Hope (India) Society at Chennai. Being Christians, they followed the procedure by filing O.P. No. 24 of 1991 before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras. After due enquiry, the Court appointed the plaintiff as guardian of the minor girl then called Shyama and granted temporary custody to both the plaintiff and first defendant. Subsequently the child’s name was changed to “Jyothee”.The plaintiff states that, though he was technically appointed guardian, in reality the ch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71734

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHonourable Dr Justice R.N.MANJULAJ.THOMAS JAYAPRABAKARAN – AppellantVersusMRS. R.LALITHAMBAL – RespondentCS No. 869 of 2001

A spouse who contributes to the acquisition and improvement of property held in the other spouse’s name is entitled to half share, and a transferee pendente lite is bound by the partition decree.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Dr Justice R.N.MANJULA
J.THOMAS JAYAPRABAKARAN – Appellant
Versus
MRS. R.LALITHAMBAL – Respondent
CS No. 869 of 2001