2017 (1) TMI 1814

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed the same in the name of the first defendant under the Sale Deeds dated 9.11.1994 and 24.10.1994. The properties were purchased in the name of the first defendant for the sentimental reasons. The consideration has been paid by the plaintiff out of his personal savings, Provident Fund alone. Though the properties were purchased in the name of the first defendant the plaintiff is enjoying the property as his own. 3. On 6.5.2009 he also mortgaged a portion of Item No.2 to one Karpagam to meet out the family expenses. Similarly, he mortgaged another portion of Item No.2 to Thiru.Murthy for Rs.2,00,000/-. Though they lived together till April 2009 there was differences between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The first defendant obtained Transfer Certificate of the second son Thellamudhan who studied in Little Jacky Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Chengalpattu without the knowledge of the plaintiff which resulted in filing of GWOP.111/2009 to take custody of the minor son Thellamudhan. Since the misunderstandings arose between them the first defendant attempted to sell the properties taking advantage of the fact that the sale deed stands in her name. She also trying t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cond defendant is the bona fide purchaser for the value? 7. In order to prove the case the plaintiff was examined as PW1. Through him 14 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A14. On the side of the defendants two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2. No document has been marked. 8. Issue No. 1: The relationship between the parties are admitted. The first defendant is the third wife of the plaintiff. Admittedly the title deeds for the suit properties stands in the name of the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, he had purchased the property in the name of the first defendant. On the other hand, in the Written Statement, it has been alleged that the first defendant purchased the properties out of her own funds, she borrowed money from her parents and sisters. Now the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title contrary to the documents of title. So the entire burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that he had purchased the property in the name of the plaintiff. Purchasing the property in the name of the wife and daughter is not covered under the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act. However even in the plaint the plaintiff was reluctant to describe that the fir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the name of the first defendant for the benefit of her. As per Clause 3(2)(a) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act 1988, the Court has to presume unless the contrary is proved as if the property has been purchased for the benefit of the wife or unmarried daughter. The suit property has been purchased in the name of the wife, the husband and wife lived together in the suit item 2 till dispute arose between them. So, the legal presumption is infavour of the first defendant. Too much of evidence has been adduced in respect of difference of opinion between the husband and wife, education of children and properties purchased in the name of younger son by the plaintiff at Maraimalai Nagar etc. Though there are evidence to believe that apart from the suit properties, the plaintiff had purchased some other properties also in the name of his family members. Unfortunately there was misunderstanding between them. When the Law says even if the property was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of his wife or any other family members, it has to be presumed that it has been purchased for their benefit, the plaintiff's title cannot be declared as prayed for by a court of Law. 11.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oubt on the second defendant's bonafide. Getting sale deed without perusing the original sale deed which is in possession of the plaintiff and filed in to the Court itself shows that the second defendant is not a bonafide purchaser. Hence this Court answers this Additional Issue against the second defendant. 16. Issue No. 2: In view of the discussions made to the Issue No.1 and Additional Issue No.1 this Court finds the suit is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result the suit is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Dictated to the Stenographer taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 3rd day of January 2017. ============= Document 1 "திருமணத்தில் என் தகப்பனாருக்கு சம்மதம் இல்லை நான் வாதிக்கு 3வது மனைவி. வாதிக்கு ஏற்....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....்ட சொத்து வாங்கும்போது காலி மனை தான். வீடு நான் தான் கட்டினேன். வாதி கட்டியதாக சொல்வது தவறு. நான் என் வீட்டில் கொடுத்த பணத்தை வங்கியில் போட்டு வைத்திருந்தேன். அதனை கொண்டு கட்டினேன் அதற்கு ஆவணம் தாக்கல் செய்யவில்லை." Document 2 "திரு....