1974 (7) TMI 124 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit property was purchased in the name of the first defendant benami for the benefit of the plaintiff?
2. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff?
3. Whether the suit has been properly valued and proper court-fee paid thereon?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of a half share as claimed in the plaint?
5. Whether the plaintiff was in joint possession of any portion of the suit property at any time as alleged in the plaint?
6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming any share in the suit property for any of the reasons alleged by the first defendant?
7. To what relief?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. 1: Whether the suit property was purchased in the name of the first defendant benami for the benefit of the plaintiff?
The court examined the oral evidence of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The plaintiff claimed that he paid for the property and managed the finances, while the first defendant argued that she independently financed the purchase through her firewood business and rental income. The court applied the tests laid down in the case of Jayadayal Peddar v. Bibi Hazra, focusing on the source of the purchase money, possession, motive, relationship, custody of title deeds, and conduct. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove his monetary contribution and found the first defendant's testimony credible. Thus, the court held that the property was not purchased benami for the plaintiff's benefit.

Issue No. 2: Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff?
The court noted that there was a specific prayer for declaration regarding the half share in the suit property. Therefore, the suit as framed was deemed maintainable. This issue was answered in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 3: Whether the suit has been properly valued and proper court-fee paid thereon?
No arguments were advanced on this issue. The court found that the suit was properly valued with reference to half the share of the suit property and that the court-fee paid was correct. This issue was resolved in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of a half share as claimed in the plaint?
Given the finding under Issue No. 1 that the property was not purchased benami for the plaintiff's benefit, the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to partition and separate possession of any share in the suit property. This issue was answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No. 5: Whether the plaintiff was in joint possession of any portion of the suit property at any time as alleged in the plaint?
The court found no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim of joint possession of the suit property at any time. This issue was resolved against the plaintiff.

Issue No. 6: Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming any share in the suit property for any of the reasons alleged by the first defendant?
The court noted that the plaintiff had attested to mortgages executed by the first defendant, which indicated his awareness and implied consent. This created an estoppel against the plaintiff from claiming any share in the suit property. This issue was decided against the plaintiff.

Issue No. 7: To what relief?
The court dismissed C.S. No. 6 of 1973, filed by the plaintiff, and decreed in favor of the first defendant in C.S. No. 157 of 1973, granting the injunction prayed for by the first defendant. Considering the relationship between the parties as husband and wife, the court directed each party to bear their own costs.

Conclusion:
C.S. No. 6 of 1973 was dismissed, and C.S. No. 157 of 1973 was decreed in favor of the first defendant, with each party bearing their own costs.