2003 (3) TMI 777 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Property Possession & Damages Award, Dismisses Appeals

George Thomas Versus Srividya

The court confirmed the judgment and decree, dismissing the appeals with costs. The plaintiff was granted vacant possession of the property and awarded ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the suit property was purchased and constructed with contributions of the defendant as alleged.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the property.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for use and occupation.4. Whether the furniture in the suit property belongs to the defendant.5. Whether the order of the Recovery Officer of the Income Tax Department is liable to be set aside.6. Whether the suit property was purchased benami by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant.7. Whether the construction was done by the plaintiff and whether he is the owner.8. Whether the Income Tax Department is entitled to proceed against the suit property for arrears due by the first defendant.9. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.10. Whether the suit is undervalued and the appropriate court fee has been paid.11. Whether the evidence recorded after the closure of the defendant's evidence can be considered.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the suit property was purchased and constructed with contributions of the defendant as alleged:The defendant claimed that he purchased the property using his own funds and funds from his brother and father, while the plaintiff only contributed a minor amount. However, the court found no substantial evidence supporting the defendant's claim that he contributed to the purchase and construction of the property. The court held that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that he had contributed to the purchase and construction costs, thus rejecting his claim.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the property:The court concluded that the property was purchased and constructed in the plaintiff's name, and she was the rightful owner. The defendant's claim of benami transaction was not established. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the property.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for use and occupation:The court upheld the plaintiff's claim for damages for use and occupation of the premises. The plaintiff was entitled to damages at the rate of Rs.10,940/- per month for the period of three years prior to the suit and also in the future, as the defendant continued to occupy the property without her consent.4. Whether the furniture in the suit property belongs to the defendant:The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the furniture, as no substantial evidence was provided to prove her claim over the furniture in the suit property.5. Whether the order of the Recovery Officer of the Income Tax Department is liable to be set aside:The court upheld the order of the Tax Recovery Officer dated 09.11.1994, rejecting the claim petition filed by the defendant. The Income Tax Department was entitled to proceed against the property for the arrears due and payable by the plaintiff.6. Whether the suit property was purchased benami by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant:The court found that the defendant failed to establish the plea of benami transaction. The burden of proof was on the defendant, and he did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim that the property was purchased benami in the name of the plaintiff.7. Whether the construction was done by the plaintiff and whether he is the owner:The court held that the plaintiff was the owner of the property, both the land and the constructed house, as the property was purchased and constructed in her name, and she had paid for the construction from her own funds.8. Whether the Income Tax Department is entitled to proceed against the suit property for arrears due by the first defendant:The court confirmed that the Income Tax Department could proceed against the property for the arrears due and payable by the plaintiff, as the order of the Tax Recovery Officer was upheld.9. Whether the suit is barred by limitation:The court did not find the suit to be barred by limitation, as the suit was filed within the permissible period after the dispute arose between the parties.10. Whether the suit is undervalued and the appropriate court fee has been paid:The court found that the suit was undervalued and directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, based on the market value of the property.11. Whether the evidence recorded after the closure of the defendant's evidence can be considered:The court held that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 to 7, and the exhibits marked after the closure of the evidence of the defendant could be considered. The application to recall witnesses was allowed without objection from the defendant, and the defendant participated in the cross-examination of these witnesses.Conclusion:The court confirmed the common judgment and decree made in C.S. Nos. 866 of 1994, 485 of 1997, and 1505 of 1995, dismissing the appeals with costs. The plaintiff was entitled to vacant possession of the property and damages for use and occupation, while the defendant's claim of benami transaction and other defenses were rejected.