SUSHIL JAIN Vs. RITU JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration, cancellation, permanent and mandatory injunction.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the plaintiff got married to defendant No.1 on 12th December, 1990, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies after which they were blessed with a child, namely, Siddharth S.Jain on 15th April, 1992. The plaintiff has averred that he, from his hard earned money, purchased a flat bearing No.P-72, South City, Gurgaon in August, 1994 in the name of defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-, although the defendant was not having any independent source of income. This flat was purchased to secure the future of the plaintiff and to develop an asset. In the year 1996-1997, the plaintiff again decided to purchase a property in Greater Kailash, Part-IV, New Delhi and accordingly, negotiated with the defendant Nos.2 to 5 with the help of a property dealer for purchase of second floor on House No.27, Mandakini NRI Complex, Greater Kailash-IV, New Delhi, viz., the suit property. Pursuant to the negotiations, an Agreement to Sell, dated 16th January, 1996, was entered between the defendant Nos.2 to 4, on the one hand, as sellers, in favour of defendant No.1, his wife Mrs.Ritu Jain, for a total consideration of Rs.22 Lacs, out of which a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- was paid by way of earnest money as part consideration and the balance amount of Rs.16,50,000/- was paid later on from the funds generated by the plaintiff. The details of these generations are given by the plaintiff in the plaint as under:

(3.) The purpose of making these averments was essentially for the plaintiff to show that it was the plaintiff's own funds, which were utilized for the purchase of the suit property. At the time of execution of the Agreement to Sell on 16th January, 1995, the defendant Nos.2 to 4 had also allegedly executed irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff. It has been alleged, in the plaint, that some time in the year 1999, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 started souring and ultimately they started living separately with effect from 07th October, 1999.