USHA THAKUR Vs. BINDESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is against the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 3/5/2017 passed in Civil Suit No.08-A/2016 by the District Judge, Dhamtari. The present appeal is by the plaintiff/appellant.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff that a purchase in respect of the property situated at Dhamtari, Post Office Bangla Yard was made on 21/6/2011. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was 'th owner of the said property whereas the defendant was 'th owner. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had brought up Virendra Singh @ Baba Thakur, husband of defendant/respondent No.1. They reposed complete confidence on Baba Thakur as they were residing together. After the education of Baba Thakur with the help of plaintiff, he was engaged in a business and financial support was also extended from time to time. It was pleaded that in the year 1996 plaintiff with his family along with Baba Thakur were residing at Dhamtari and he was married to defendant No.1 Smt. Bindeshwari on 21st of June 2010. While they were living together, the plaintiff received an offer for purchase of a property through the husband of defendant. The sale consideration of the property was Rs.18.00 Lakhs along with expenses and after consultation in the house, 14 Lakhs rupees was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff while 4 Lakhs was agreed to be paid by the defendant and sharing of the property was agreed to the extent of 'th and 'th ratably. After settlement of the terms of purchase, the sale deed was executed, wherein around 13.59 Lakhs rupees was paid by the plaintiff, while rest of the amount was paid by the defendant. Because of some official work, the plaintiff's husband could not appear at the time of registration proceedings and taking advantage of the absence, Baba Thakur, the husband of defendant No.1, did not get the above agreed terms mentioned in a conspiratorial manner in the sale deed. it is alleged that the sale deed was executed jointly in favour of the plaintiff and defendant, whereby by fraud, the plaintiff and defendant both became owner in equal part of the property purchased, whereas as per the payment of the sale consideration the plaintiff was to be the owner of 'th of the property and defendant was to be the owner of 'th .

(3.) The defendant in turn denied the averments of the allegation and stated that the amount was paid in equal by the plaintiff and the defendant, therefore, they would be the joint owner of the property. It is further stated that they were not dependent on the plaintiff and was generating the income through his individual business.