SHANTHI AND ORS. Vs. M. MASANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1, 2 and 4 in the original suit are the appellants in the second appeal. The sole plaintiff in the original suit is the respondent in the second appeal. The suit O.S.No.8475 of1995 was filed by Masanam, the respondent herein against the appellants herein and one N.Chinniah. The said Chinniah figured as third defendant in the said suit.

(2.) The original suit came to be filed by the respondent herein initially against the appellants 1 and 2 herein and the above said Chinniah arraying them as defendants 1 and 2 and defendant No.3 respectively. It is an admitted fact that the first appellant Shanthi @ Shanthi Sathya is the wife of Masanam, the respondent herein/plaintiff and their marriage took place on 01.02.1979 at Ayakudi Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. N.Chinniah, who figured as the third defendant in the original suit is the father of Shanthi @ Shanthi Sathya, the first appellant herein/first defendant. They had a son by name Sridhar. He was born on 22.11.1979 . Due to the problem between the husband and wife, Masanam, the respondent herein/plaintiff filed a petition for divorce in the Family Court, Chennai as O.P.No.1017 of 1992 under Section 30(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alleging adultery as the ground for divorce. The petition was not contested and it resulted in a decree granting divorce in favour of Masanam, the respondent herein/plaintiff as he had prayed for in the said O.P. The said decree came to be passed on 01.02.1995. The suit property, namely a house site bearing Plot No.57, Konnur Village comprised in R.s.No.183 measuring 40 feet x 60 feet situated within the Registration District of North Madras and Sub-Registration District of Ambattur (presently Purasawalkam) came to be purchased on 30.12.1985 and registered as document No.888/1986 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ambattur. The original sale deed has been produced by the appellants as Ex.B1, whereas a certified copy of the same has been produced by the respondent herein/plaintiff as Ex.A2 before the trial Court. Contending that though the purchase was made in the name of the first appellant herein/first defendant, he was the actual purchaser who paid the sale consideration and that he alone was the owner of the property, Masanam, the respondent herein filed the above said suit O.S.No.8475/1995 for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the property, for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants in the suit, for setting aside the sale transaction dated 19.01.1994 between the first appellant/first defendant on the one hand and the second and third appellants/second and fourth defendants on the other hand in respect of the plaint schedule property holding such sale to be null and void, for a permanent injunction restraining the second and fourth defendants from putting up any further construction or making improvements in the plaint schedule property and also for costs. Initially, the suit was filed against first and second appellants herein and Chinniah, arraying them as defendants 1, 2 and 3 respectively and the prayer regarding sale deed dated 19.01.1994 by setting aside the same as null and void came to be made on the assumption that the second appellant/Dharmalingam alone was the purchaser under the said sale transaction. However, during the pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended to the effect that the conveyance made under the sale deed dated 19.01.1994 by the first appellant was in favour of the second appellant as well as the third appellant ( Dhanasingh) and the said Dhanasingh was impleaded as a defendant in the suit and ranked as fourth defendant. The above said reliefs were claimed by the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of the plaint averments that it was he who purchased the property with his own funds in the name of his wife out of pure love and affection towards her and with the intention of providing a security for his wife and minor son and that hence the prohibition contained in Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 would not get attracted to his case.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the first respondent/first defendant contending that the suit property was purchased by her in her name with her own funds and that the contra averments found in the plaint could not be sustained. The second appellant/second defendant resisted the suit contending that he had purchased the suit property from the first appellant/first defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.49,500/- under a sale deed dated 19.01.1994 registered as Document No.244 of 1995 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ambattur; that thus having become the absolute owner of the suit property, got possession of the same and was enjoying the same and that no one including the respondent herein/plaintiff did have any interest of any nature whatsoever in respect of the suit property. He had also contended that after his purchase under the sale deed dated 19.01.1994, he completed the construction of a house and that after such completion of construction of the house by the second appellant/second defendant, the respondent /plaintiff approached the Court with the suit with false averments and ulterior motive.