PREETHA VINOD Vs. VINOD XAVIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment in O.P. No. 441/2009 of the Family Court, Alappuzha.

(2.) By the impugned judgment, the court has decreed the Original Petition filed by the respondent herein/husband, declaring that he is having title and possession in respect of the plaint schedule properties and a permanent prohibitory injunction also is granted restraining the respondent from creating any documents, inducting strangers and interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the said property.

(3.) The appellant/wife while impugning the aforesaid judgment, inter alia, contends that the Court below had committed serious error in decreeing the suit. From the pleadings itself, it is clear that the property was purchased for the benefit of the wife and therefore in terms of Section 3(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred as the Act) as it then stood, a presumption is available that the property is purchased for the benefit of wife and therefore, the petitioner/husband was not entitled for a decree. That apart, evidence was adduced to prove that the money spent for purchasing the property was given by the wife also and therefore joint ownership was well established in the case.