2001 (3) TMI 1072 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Contribution towards purchase money of the suit site.
2. Co-ownership rights in the schedule premises.
3. Lawful possession of the suit property.
4. Threats of dispossession by the defendant.
5. Defendant's claim of contributing the entire sale consideration.
6. Entitlement to a decree of permanent injunction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Contribution towards purchase money of the suit site:
The plaintiffs claimed that they and the defendant contributed to the purchase money of the suit site. The evidence showed that the second plaintiff issued a cheque for Rs. 48,734.00 from her account, and Rs. 35,636.00 was transferred from the first plaintiff's account to the second plaintiff for the sale consideration. The defendant's claim that he paid the entire sale consideration was found to be false. The court concluded that plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 and the defendant each contributed Rs. 5,000.00, and the balance was paid by the first plaintiff.

2. Co-ownership rights in the schedule premises:
The court held that since the plaintiffs and the defendant contributed to the purchase money, they are co-owners of the schedule premises. The legal principle from Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Trusts Act was applied, establishing that all contributors to the purchase fund are co-owners, regardless of the property being registered in one person's name.

3. Lawful possession of the suit property:
The trial court held that the plaintiffs' possession of the suit property was not unlawful. The plaintiffs were in possession of the property, and the defendant, despite claiming absolute ownership, could not dispossess them by force.

4. Threats of dispossession by the defendant:
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant threatened to dispossess them. The trial court found that while the defendant asserted ownership, he had no right to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs. The appellate court upheld this finding, granting an injunction against the defendant.

5. Defendant's claim of contributing the entire sale consideration:
The defendant's claim that he provided the entire sale consideration was disproved by the evidence. The court found that the substantial part of the sale consideration came from the plaintiffs, and the defendant only contributed Rs. 5,000.00. The defendant's various contentions regarding his financial contributions were found to be inconsistent and unsupported by the evidence.

6. Entitlement to a decree of permanent injunction:
Given the findings on co-ownership and the threat of dispossession, the court granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiffs. The court declared the plaintiffs and the defendant as co-owners, each entitled to an equal share of the suit schedule property.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the plaintiffs' suit was decreed, declaring them co-owners of the suit schedule property along with the defendant. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiffs. The defendant was allowed to seek legal proceedings to carve out his share in the property. No costs were awarded.