Madras High Court
V.Rajagopalan vs T.R.Parimala on 28 June, 2021
A.S.No.283 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
A.S.No.283 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
V.Rajagopalan .... Appellant
Vs
T.R.Parimala .... Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC to set aside the
Judgment and Decree dated 11.12.2013 made in O.S.No.189 of 2008 on
the file of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy
For Respondent : Mr.K.Bijai Sundar
JUDGMENT
This Appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated
11.12.2013 made in O.S.No.189 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, thereby allowing the suit for
partition.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
per their ranking in the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.283 of 2015
3. The case of the plaintiff is that she got married the
defendant and due to their wedlock they gave birth to two female
children. In the year 1996, the plaintiff and the defendant jointly
purchased the suit property with her hard earned money under the sale
deed dated 19.06.1996 and also entered into an agreement for
construction with the builders in respect of the undivided share. After
completion of the construction, the possession was handed over to the
plaintiff and the defendant and they were in joint possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. Thereafter, due to misunderstanding
between them, the plaintiff along with her two children were driven out
from the matrimonial home on 26.07.2004. Further case of the plaintiff
is that the suit property was purchased from her hard earned money,
raising loan from the LIC and even at the time of filing the suit, she was
paying monthly loan instalment. The defendant never contributed any
amount for purchase of the land even though it was purchased jointly in
the name of the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, she filed a suit for
partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit property.
3. Resisting the same, the defendant filed a written statement
stating that out of his hard earned money he educated his daughters till
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.283 of 2015
their graduation. He also made so many deposits in favour of his
daughters. The plaintiff very often used to quarrel with the defendant
and as such, he was tortured like anything by mentally and physically.
The suit property was purchased by the defendant from his hard earned
money. In fact, the plaintiff has worked as typist before her marriage.
After her marriage, she got employment at Excel Fibre Glass Pvt. Ltd.,
and she was working there at the time of purchasing the suit property and
was earning only a sum of Rs.1,300/- per month as salary. Whereas, the
monthly instalment comes around more than Rs.3,700/- for purchase of
the suit property. Therefore, she did not pay any instalment as averred in
the plaint. In the year 1996, when the defendant intended to purchase the
suit property, his father gave a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and his brother gave
a sum of Rs.60,000/- and both the amounts were used as margin amount
for purchasing the suit property. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of
the suit.
4. On hearing the rival pleadings, the learned trial Judge
framed the following issues for determination in the suit :-
"1/ jhth brhj;jpid fpuak; bra;J
nkw;go U:/1.300-- kl;Lnk thjp khj tUkhdk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.283 of 2015
<l;oajhy; U:/3.700--jhth brhj;jpw;F bfhLf;f
,ayhjjhy; t';fp fld; kw;Wk; je;ij.
Rnfhjuh; MfpnahhplkpUe;J fld; bgw;w jhth
brhj;jpidj; jhd; fpuak; bra;jjhf cs;s
gpujpthjpapd; vjph;tHf;Fiu Tw;W rhpah ?
2/ 2013 tUlj;jpy; jhd; vy; I rp
fld; Kot[Wtjhy; vy; I rpapy; jhd; brhj;J
mlkhdk; itf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhy; thjp gpujpthjp
,UtUf;Fk; jhth brhj;jpy; chpikapy;iy
vd;gjhy; tHf;F epiyf;fj;jf;fjy;y vd;W
vjph;tHf;Fiuapd; Tw;W rhpah ?
3/ jd; g';F gzj;ij kw;Wk; vy; I
rpaplk; fld; bgw;W jhth brhj;ij thjp
gpujpthjp bgahpy; jhth fpuak; bra;jjhy;
jhth brhj;jpy; rhpghjp ghfj;ija[k; mjd;
jdpg;gl;l RthjPdj;ija[k; jdf;F tH';f nfhhp
ghpfhuk; bgw thjp mUfuh ?
4/ jhth brhj;jpy; ,Ue;J
fpilf;ff;Toa thlif tUkhdj;ij Fwpj;J
gpujpthjp rhpahd fzf;F bfhLf;fhjjhy;
1996 Kjy; bgw;w thlifapy; rhpghjpapid
jdf;Fg; bgw cj;jputpLkhW tHf;Fiuapy;
nfhUk; ghpfhuk; bgw thjp mUfuh ?
5/ thjpf;Ff; fpilf;ff; Toa ,ju
ghpfhu';fs; ahit ?”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.283 of 2015
The above issues recasted on 11.12.2013
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for ½
share in the plaint schedule property as prayed for ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
direction against the defendants to render true and
correct amount for the rental income from the plaint
schedule property ?
3. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ?
5. On the side of the plaintiff, she was examined as P.W.1
and marked Exs.A1 and A2. On the side of the defendant, he was
examined as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B12. On considering the oral
and documentary evidences adduced by the respective parties and on
hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel, the Court below
decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant
preferred this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
merely the property has been purchased in the name of the plaintiff, she
is not entitled for half share in the suit schedule property, since, the
plaintiff and the defendants are husband and wife. Normally, the
husband purchases the suit property in the name of husband and wife. At
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.283 of 2015
the time of purchasing the property, she had no income and only from the
hard earned money of the husband, the suit property was purchased. She
did not even spent a single penny to the property. In fact, the husband
spent entire amount of his earnings to his daughters. Now, the plaintiff is
well settled with her daughters, who were already married and living
separately with their respective husband. Now, the petitioner is retired
person and except the suit property he has no other source to survive. He
is residing in the property and as such, the Court below ought not to have
decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff. He had taken care of all
educational expenses and marriage expenses of his daughters and only
due to torture and harassment made by the defendant, there was
misunderstanding between them. Further the plaintiff herself went away
from the matrimonial home. She did not produce any piece of evidence
to substantiate that she also equally contributed to purchase the suit
property. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would
submit that admittedly the suit property was purchased in the name of the
plaintiff and the defendant. Though, the defendant did not contribute any
money to purchase the suit property, the plaintiff being the wife had also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.283 of 2015
purchased the suit property along with her husband name also. In fact,
she only availed the loan from LIC to purchase the suit property and even
at the time of filing the suit she had been continuously paying the
monthly instalment. She marked Ex.A2 to prove the same. After giving
birth to two female children and when they were aged about 22 years and
18 years, they were driven out from the matrimonial home. However, she
managed to spend money for their education expenses and also for their
marriage. Therefore, the Court below rightly decreed the suit and there is
no reason for interference with the Judgment and Decree passed by the
Court below.
8. Heard, Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr.K.Bijai Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent
9. The plaintiff is the wife and the defendant is the husband.
Both got married in the year 1986 and gave birth to two female children.
Admittedly the plaintiff and her daughters were driven out from the
matrimonial home on 22.07.2004. Further on 19.06.1996, the plaintiff
and the defendants jointly purchased the suit property and also entered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.283 of 2015
into an agreement for construction with the builder in respect of the un-
divided share. After completion of construction, the suit property was
handed over to the plaintiff and the defendant and they were in joint
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Thereafter, due to
misunderstanding between them, the plaintiff was driven out from the
matrimonial home and she filed a suit for partition. Though the
defendant denied about the contribution made by the plaintiff for
purchase of the suit property, the sale deed which was marked as Ex.A1
stands in the name of both the plaintiff and the defendant.
10. When it being so, the plaintiff is entitled to ½ share in the
suit property as per the sale deed. Based on the sale deed both were
entered into the agreement for construction and thereafter they were in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property jointly. In fact, the plaintiff
availed loan from the LIC to purchase the suit property. Ex.A2 is the
statement of payment of instalment. Therefore, the plaintiff also equally
contributed to purchase the suit property. Therefore, the Court below
rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and this Court finds no
infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.283 of 2015
11. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
28.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order /Non-speaking order
Lpp
To
The Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.283 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lpp
A.S.No.283 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
28.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
