9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (8) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased in the name of the appellant under Ex. B-1 dated 18-8-1943. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the allegation that though the title deed stood in the name of the appellant, it was he who advanced the money for purchasing the property and it was he who was the beneficial owner of the property. Admittedly the husband and wife lived together till 1954, when the wife left the house of the husband and started living with her sister. The case of the appellant was that the consideration for the purchase of the property covered by Ex. B-1 was provided by her and in any event the husband did not intend to purchase the property benami for him and the property was intended to belong to the appellant herself. Both the courts below came to the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of the property by the husband in the name of the wife. Such a motive is absolutely absent in this case except the self-serving statement of the husband that he agreed to the inclusion of the name of his wife in the sale deed just to compliment her. In all cases of such transactions, the crucial consideration is whether the husband intended, when he purchased the property in the name of the wife, that the wife should become the owner of the property or did he intend that notwithstanding the title deed standing in the name of the wife, he alone should be the owner of the property. Undoubtedly the intention has to be gathered from all the surrounding circumstances of the case and it is only because of these features, several tests have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the property should belong to the wife and only when she left the house of the husband in 1954, he changed his mind and wanted to put forward his own claim to the said property. Once the intention that he wanted to benefit the wife and he wanted the wife to be the owner of the property, at the time when the property was purchased, is established clearly and indisputably, no amount of change of intention subsequently will have the effect of divesting the title which the wife acquired under the document under which the property was purchased in her name. Therefore, the admission of the plaintiff in this case, as extracted already, is the clearest possible evidence of his intention that the wife should be the owner of the property and if so, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
