Yogita Dasgupta vs Kaustav Dasgupta (Delhi HC) (Mat. App. (F.C.) 7/2014)
2. The brief facts are that the parties to the suit solemnized their marriage on 12.05.1999. Two children, i.e., a boy and a girl were born out of the wedlock. The suit property was purchased through a sale deed executed on 06.12.2006, which reflected the appellant as owner of the property. The parties started living separately in 2010;eventually their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act by order dated 05.07.2014. The husband (hereafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) filed a suit claiming to be real and true owner of the suit property.
11. It is argued on behalf of the husband that at no stage did the wife claim that the property was bought for her benefit. She had alleged that she paid all the consideration for acquisition of the suit property. She generally traversed and denied the averments in the suit. It was highlighted that the evidence placed on the record was with an attempt to prove that in fact the consideration was paid. It was next highlighted that though not clearly pleaded, the tenor of the suit was categorical in that the plaintiff urged that the property was purchased not only for the wife’s benefit but also for the benefit of the entire family. The evidence also showed that the parties lived together with their children. In fact even as on date the plaintiff and his children live with him - it is only the appellant wife who left the family. Counsel reiterated that till date the loan liability towards payment of consideration for purchase of the property has not been discharged and the husband continues to bear it.
12. It was submitted that there cannot be general assumption that where parties live together in a matrimonial home and there is no property owned by either of them, the purchase of premises in the name of the wife, has to necessarily be for her benefit. It was suggested that the circumstances of every case have to be examined to see whether the parties intended that the property is for the benefit of the wife exclusively or for the family as a whole. If a fair inference can be drawn that the property is for the benefit of the family, the husband is deemed to have discharged the onus cast on him. Learned counsel has relied upon Valliammal Vs. Subramaniam & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 233; G. Mahalingappa Vs. G.M. Savitha (2005) 6 SCC 441;and V. Shankaranarayana Rao & Ors. Vs. Leelavathi & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 732.
19. In this case, the overall effect of the pleadings and evidence is that:
(1) The suit property was purchased with the husband’s money, in the wife’s name
(2) The husband secured a Bank loan for the purchase of the property. This would mean that the property is mortgaged to the bank.
(3) The husband continues to be liable for the loan and is making repayment towards installments.
(4) The suit property became the family home as long as parties were married.
(5) The appellant wife left the property in 2010 and never returned. The parties later dissolved their marriage by mutual consent
(6) The two children live with the husband, in the suit property
(7) Though the defendant/wife stated that she was repaying the loan, she was unable to prove that allegation.
(8) The husband, in the cross examination stated that since stamp duty payable was at a lower rate if the vendees were women, he decided to purchase stamp paper in the wife’s name, and complete the transaction. On the basis of the above it can clearly be held that the plaintiff discharged the onus which lay upon him to prove that the property was purchased not for the wife’s benefit, but for that of the family as a whole.
20. By reason of the foregoing analysis, it is held that the appeal is meritless. It is therefore dismissed without order as to costs.