AMBUJAKSHY Vs. KARUNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This litigation is between a husband and a wife. The husband filed a suit for partition of the property. The property stood in the joint names of husband and wife. They put forward claims, taller than what could be made good by the evidence. The wife thought, and rashly, as it ultimately turned out, that her mere ipse dixit was sufficient to substantiate her contention about her exclusive ownership of the funds utilised for the purchase of the property. The Trial Court, rightly, did not think that such uncorroborated evidence was acceptable to dislodge the statutory presumption under the second part of S.45 of the Transfer of Property Act. That finding has been concurred in by the Appellate Court.

(2.) I am in agreement with the finding of fact. Evidence was available; but no attempt was made to adduce it before the Court. She had pleaded about the gifts made to her by her mother and brother. It was claimed that the brother had sold some of his gold ornaments and had ready funds with him to be made over as gifts to his sister. The brother was not examined to prove those facts.

(3.) There was not even an attempt to examine, nor was any attempt made to adduce other independent evidence strong enough to jettison the statutory provision.