(1.) Heard learned counsel Sri M.Naga Deepak for the appellant and the learned counsel Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar for the respondent.
(2.) Plaintiff filed O.S.No.7 of 2022 in the Court of I Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. Plaintiff claims to be a Dentist by profession. He married the defendant in the year 2007. According to the plaintiff, property bearing plot No.140 in Sy.Nos.74, 1001/1, 100/2, 100/3, 102 and 103 admeasuring 251.11 square yards situated at Durgamatha House Building Cooperative Society Limited at Gunrock, Trimulgherry village, Secunderabad Cantonment, described as schedule 'A' property, was purchased by the defendant vide Sale Deed dtd. 2/9/2015. Defendant paid total sale consideration of Rs.37,66,650.00. In pursuance of the collective decision to build a house, plaintiff applied to Secunderabad Cantonment Board for permission to construct a house. The Cantonment Board has granted building permission on 20/11/2017. He paid the amount required for building permission and entire costs for construction of the building. In all, he has contributed Rs.1,71,97,484.00 for construction of building on suit schedule 'A' property. Plaintiff is living in the said property. It is further case that plaintiff and defendant decided to invest in a commercial property. Consequent to the said decision, they have identified the office space bearing no.918, having Municipal No.6/3/1192/1/III/918 in Block-III, admeasuring 1340.41 square feet including two Car parkings and jointly purchased for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,04,95,700.00. It is schedule 'B' property.
(3.) According to the plaintiff, even though there were joint purchases made by the plaintiff and defendant, without informing the plaintiff, the defendant registered the said properties in her name. According to the plaintiff, in the year 2021, defendant suddenly left the house along with two children and has not responded for a long time. According to the plaintiff, defendant started claiming right over the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and threatening the plaintiff to vacate the schedule 'A' property. In those circumstances, plaintiff prayed to pass decree in his favour declaring that plaintiff is a beneficial owner of the schedule 'A' property and consequently declare that the plaintiff is the true and rightful owner of 70% of the share of the schedule 'A' property; and to declare that he is a beneficial owner of schedule 'B' property and consequently declare that the plaintiff is true and rightful owner of 52% of the share in the schedule 'B' property.