2023 (6) TMI 1264 - HC - Benami Property

Joint properties purchased by husband and wife housewife - legal owner - exclusive right over the properties - Property purchased out of the monies earned by the plaintiff husband and by the indirect contribution made by 1st defendant wife - plaintiff was working abroad and sending money to the 1st defendant wife - suit properties, items 1 to 4 were purchased in the name of the 1st defendant benami out of the money sent by the plaintiff while he was in abroad and that the plaintiff took possession and managed the said properties as his own properties after returning from abroad - 1st defendant failed to prove that she had sufficient funds of her own to purchase the 4th item of the suit properties. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are husband and wife, married as living in Neyveli. The plaintiff got a job in a Steel Company in Saudi Arabia, and left for Saudi Arabia, the 1st defendant wife continued to live in Neyveli children and she was entrusted with the funds of the plaintiff - During his visit to India between 1983 and 1994, he brought various articles of value, jewellery and cash. The 1st defendant wife had no income of her own and was only managing and administering the affairs of the plaintiff prudently and operating the accounts and thus was acting in effect as the agent in a fiduciary capacity. While managing the affairs of the plaintiff, she purchased items 1 to 4 properties on behalf of the plaintiff utilizing the funds of the plaintiff. HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered view that the 1st defendant/wife has contributed equally, though not directly but indirectly by way of looking after the home and taking care of the family for more than a decade and managing the household chores, thereby releasing the husband for gainful employment and made his stay comfortable in abroad and also to reduce the expenses and save the money for future benefit of the family including for purchasing of the assets. Though the properties purchased in the name of the 1st defendant, she alone cannot claim exclusive right over the properties merely because the title deed is in her name since the documentary evidence would establish that the 1st defendant/wife purchased the properties out of the direct financial contribution of the plaintiff also. Likewise, the plaintiff also cannot claim absolute right merely on the basis that he had sent the money to purchase the properties and the 1st defendant is only holding the property in trust as ostensible title over the properties in fiduciary capacity, as already discussed based on Ex.A1 to Ex.A11, this Court arrives at the conclusion that since Item Nos.1 and 2 have been purchased from and out joint contribution of spouses, viz., the plaintiff by earning and the 1st defendant indirectly by way of her invaluable services as home maker, whereby reducing the expenses of her husband which lead her husband to save more and this way the wife had contributed indirectly to purchase the property item Nos.1 and 2, which aspect cannot be ignored as the same could be decided based on Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. This Court has no hesitation to hold both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are entitled to equal shares in the present facts of the case over the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule mentioned properties and to that extent the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside. Item No.4 of the schedule mentioned properties - 1st defendant also failed to produce any documentary proof to show that this property was purchased by selling her ancestral property. In the absence of the documentary evidences on the part of the 1st defendant, a presumption can be drawn by this Court to the effect that this property was purchased from and out of the monies earned by the plaintiff and by the indirect contribution made by the first respondent and further as stated above, both the spouses, have directly or indirectly contributed in acquiring the properties, likewise, the item No.4 also. Accordingly, this Court holds that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are entitled to equal share over the item No.4 of the schedule mentioned properties and to that extent the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is set aside. No hesitation to hold both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are entitled to equal shares in the present facts of the case over the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule mentioned properties and to that extent the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside. Benami transaction - As benami transaction would not attract in respect of the properties purchased for the benefit of the husband and the 1st defendant is only holding the property in trust for the benefit of her husband. Though they have taken a stand that the Benami Transactions would not be applicable, this Court already arrived at the conclusion that the suit properties have been purchased by the joint contribution made by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant equally, Section 3, 4 or 5 of the Benami Transaction Act would not attract in the present case. This Court is of the view that Item Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of the schedule mentioned properties were purchased from and out of the joint contribution made by both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and they are entitled to equal shares over the item Nos.1, 2 and 4 of the schedule mentioned properties. Accordingly, the Substantial Questions of Law Nos.2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are answered. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property - 3rd item of the suit properties was purchased by the 1st defendant by pledging her jewels and that she is the owner of the said property - When this property was purchased in the name of the 1st defendant by pledging her jewels, it should be considered that the 1st defendant alone is the full owner of the property and not a limited owner. Merely the plaintiff/husband helped her for redeeming the jewels, would no way, create a right in his favour over the property. Only Ex.A15 shows that the jewels were redeemed out of the monies received from the plaintiff. ExA14 is the document, which establishes that the money had been received by pledging the 1st defendant/wife's jewels for the purchase of Item No.3 of the schedule mentioned properties. Therefore, I do not find any error in the judgement of the First Appellate Court in holding that the Item No.3 of the schedule mentioned properties belongs to the 1st defendant only. Jewels in the 5th item locker were purchased by the plaintiff for the benefit of the 1st defendant and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the same - relationship of husband and wife between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant came to an end by dissolution of the marriage - The correspondences took place between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff, clearly reveals that the plaintiff had not bought the same on his own volition, but only on requests made by the 1st defendant persistently to gift her jewels, the plaintiff in order to fullfill her wishes, bought the jewels, sarees, etc., and presented her. Therefore, once he presented the gifts, he is not entitled to claim it back though he purchased out of his own earnings. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Item No.5 of the schedule mentioned properties belongs to the 1st defendant. Thus, do not find any error in the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court on this aspect of Item No.5. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No.3 is answered in favour of the 1st defendant. This Court holds as regards Item Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of the schedule mentioned properties, that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are entitled to half share each and as far as Item No.3 and 5 of the schedule mentioned property are concerned, the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the same.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit properties.
2. Ownership of Item No. 3 of the suit properties.
3. Ownership of Item No. 4 of the suit properties.
4. Ownership of Item No. 5 of the suit properties.
5. Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Ownership of Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the Suit Properties

The court recognized that the 1st defendant (wife) contributed indirectly to the acquisition of the properties by managing the household and caring for the children, which allowed the plaintiff (husband) to earn and save money abroad. The court held that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are entitled to equal shares in Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit properties. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were set aside to this extent.

Issue 2: Ownership of Item No. 3 of the Suit Properties

The court found that Item No. 3 was purchased by the 1st defendant by pledging her jewels, which were later redeemed using money sent by the plaintiff. The jewels were considered the 1st defendant's stridhana. The court upheld the First Appellate Court's decision that Item No. 3 belongs solely to the 1st defendant.

Issue 3: Ownership of Item No. 4 of the Suit Properties

The court held that there was insufficient documentary evidence to prove that Item No. 4 was purchased solely with the plaintiff's money. However, it presumed that the property was acquired through the joint contributions of both spouses. Both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are entitled to equal shares in Item No. 4. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were set aside to this extent.

Issue 4: Ownership of Item No. 5 of the Suit Properties

The court agreed with the First Appellate Court that the jewels, sarees, and other items in the bank locker were presented by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant as gifts. Once gifted, the plaintiff could not claim them back. The court upheld the First Appellate Court's decision that Item No. 5 belongs to the 1st defendant.

Issue 5: Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act

The court noted that both lower courts had found that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act did not apply, as the properties were purchased for the benefit of the husband, with the wife holding them in trust. The court reiterated that the properties were acquired through joint contributions and thus, the Benami Transactions Act was not applicable.

Conclusion:

The court held that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are entitled to equal shares in Item Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of the suit properties. The 1st defendant is the absolute owner of Item Nos. 3 and 5. The Second Appeal and the Cross Objection were partly allowed, modifying the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.