Court upholds property purchase in wife's name, dismisses appeal. Acquisition during suit not bona fide.

The High Court affirmed the Trial Court's decision in O.S.No.236 of 2009, upholding that the appellant purchased properties in the name of his third wife for her benefit. The 2nd defendant's acquisition during the suit was deemed not bona fide under the Doctrine of lis pendens. The Appeal Suit in A.S.No.162 of 2017 was dismissed, with no costs awarded, confirming the judgment and decree of the District Court dated 03.01.2017.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to judgment and decree in O.S.No.236 of 2009.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a retired Government servant, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding properties purchased in the name of his third wife, the 1st defendant. The appellant claimed to have bought the properties using his personal savings and Provident Fund. Disputes arose between the appellant and the 1st defendant, leading to the suit.

2. The 1st defendant denied the appellant's ownership of the properties, asserting that she purchased them with financial assistance from her family. The 2nd defendant, a subsequent purchaser, claimed bona fide acquisition of one of the properties and raised issues under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.

3. The Trial Court framed issues regarding the appellant's ownership of the properties and the relief he was entitled to. Witnesses were examined, and documents were presented by both parties.

4. The Trial Court analyzed the relationship between the appellant and the 1st defendant, noting discrepancies in their statements. It considered the Benami Transactions Act and the presumption that property purchased in the wife's name is for her benefit.

5. The Trial Court found that the appellant had purchased the properties in the name of the 1st defendant for her benefit, despite disputes between them. The Court also addressed the 2nd defendant's purchase during the suit's pendency, invoking the Doctrine of lis pendens.

6. The Trial Court concluded that the appellant had purchased the properties for the 1st defendant's benefit, and the 2nd defendant's acquisition was not bona fide due to the ongoing suit. The judgment and decree of O.S.No.236 of 2009 were upheld, confirming the Trial Court's decision.

7. Consequently, the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.162 of 2017 was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The judgment and decree dated 03.01.2017 from the District Court were affirmed by the High Court.

---