Presumption of ownership in wife's name defeats belated partition claim and supports rejection for limitation and court fee defects.

A challenge to title, partition and declaration over property standing in a mother's name was treated as time-barred where the claim was raised long after the conveyance and after the claimant's delay in asserting rights. The plaint was also found undervalued and unsupported by proper court fee because the pleadings did not show prima facie possession consistent with the relief sought. On title, the property was held to belong to the mother: a purchase in a wife's name carries a presumption of benefit to her, and unrestricted title under the Hindu Succession Act makes her the absolute owner. The suit was therefore described as unsustainable on limitation, valuation and title grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for declaration and partition was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the suit was liable to rejection for improper valuation and non-payment of proper court fee. (iii) Whether the property, standing in the name of the mother, could still be treated as the benami property of the husband or as joint family property of the legal heirs.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for declaration and partition was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The relief claimed was founded on a challenge to title recorded in favour of the mother under a conveyance deed executed in 1975. The cause, if any, arose when the property stood transferred in her name, and the husband, who remained alive for many years thereafter, never sought a declaration that the property was his. The plaintiff also did not assert any right within the prescribed period after attaining majority or after her marriage. On these facts, the challenge to the mother's title was stale and time-barred.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and the finding was against the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was liable to rejection for improper valuation and non-payment of proper court fee.

Analysis: The plaint claimed both declaration and partition while asserting only a bald plea of possession over part of the property, without any prima facie material showing possession. The valuation for court fee and jurisdiction was inconsistent with the value of the share claimed and with the value of the declaratory relief. In these circumstances, the suit was held to have been undervalued and not properly stamped.

Conclusion: The suit was liable to rejection for improper valuation and non-payment of proper court fee, and the finding was against the plaintiff.

Issue (iii): Whether the property, standing in the name of the mother, could still be treated as the benami property of the husband or as joint family property of the legal heirs.

Analysis: Under the statutory presumption applicable to a purchase in the name of the wife, the property is taken to be for her benefit. Further, a female Hindu in possession of property is the full owner under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, unless the instrument imposes a restriction. The conveyance deed stood solely in the mother's name and contained no restriction on her ownership. The property therefore could not be treated as belonging to the husband or as available for partition among his heirs.

Conclusion: The property belonged to the mother as absolute owner, and the plaintiff's challenge to her title failed.

Final Conclusion: The suit was found to be unsustainable on limitation, valuation and title grounds, and was dismissed with costs under the summary rejection power.

Ratio Decidendi: A property purchased in the name of a wife is presumed to be for her benefit, and where the title deed confers unrestricted ownership on her, she is the absolute owner under the Hindu Succession Act; a belated challenge to such title is liable to be rejected, including for limitation and improper court fee valuation.

---