Delhi District Court
Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia vs ) Ms. Meena Bhatia on 14 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURVINDER PAL SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.S. No. 325/2009
Unique I. D. No. 02401C0380982006
Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia,
S/o Late Sh. Sikandar Bhatia,
R/o H. No. S384, First Floor, Greater KailashI,
New Delhi110048.
......Plaintiff
Versus
1) Ms. Meena Bhatia,
D/o Late Sh. Kundan Lal Bhatia,
R/o H. No. S384, First Floor, Greater KailashI,
New Delhi110048.
2) Sh. Danish Bhatia,
S/o Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia,
R/o H. No. S384, First Floor, Greater KailashI,
New Delhi110048.
CS325/2009
Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 1 of 26
3) Ms. Binish Bhatia,
D/o Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia,
R/o H. No. S384, First Floor, Greater KailashI,
New Delhi110048.
.......Defendants
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, MANDATORY AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
Date of institution of suit : 03.05.2006
Date of conclusion of argument : 23.11.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.01.2016
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction with respect to the residential flat on first floor of property bearing no. S384, Greater Kailash, PartI, New Delhi110048 (hereinafter referred as suit property) against the defendants. Adumbrated in brief the facts of the case of plaintiff are as follows. Plaintiff had purchased the afore said suit property benami in the name of his wife i.e. defendant no1 for consideration sum of Rs. CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 2 of 26 19,50,000/ paid by him, however, the registered sale deed was executed in the name of defendant no1. Plaintiff has been a manufacturer and exporter of handicraft brass artwork, living in his ancestral home at Moradabad. Defendant no1 is wife of plaintiff and defendants no2 and 3 are his son and daughter, respectively. Plaintiff alongwith defendants had been staying in Moradabad at his house situated in LaneB, Rajinder Nagar, Civil Lines, Moradabad, U.P. till 05.05.2005. Defendants showed keen desire of shifting to Delhi and suggested the plaintiff to sell off the ancestral property i.e. Municipal No. D25 A, Model Town, Delhi110009, which had been bequeathed by father of plaintiff vide Will dated 11.07.1969 in his favour and to invest the proceeds from the said house in purchasing a flat in South Delhi. Plaintiff wanted to shift to New Delhi alongwith defendants. Plaintiff sold the house of Model Town for consideration sum of Rs. 24 Lakhs. The plaintiff decided to enter into a benami transaction, thereby made the payment of entire consideration of Rs. 19,50,000/ of his own. Plaintiff submitted that his wife/defendant no1 was a housewife and she had got no earnings whatsoever. The sale deed was registered in the name of defendant no1 on 05.05.2005. Plaintiff had directly made the payment of Rs. 14 Lakhs from his account CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 3 of 26 to the account of seller of suit property while the balance payment of Rs. 5,50,00/ was made by plaintiff by transferring the said amount in the account of defendant no1, who thereafter made the payment of balance amount of Rs. 5,50,000/ from her account. Thereafter, plaintiff and defendants started living together at the suit property. The marriage of defendant no2 was fixed for 28.11.2005 at Moradabad, the plaintiff and defendants stayed at Moradabad during the wedding. Plaintiff averred that defendant no1 took loans from plaintiff around 23.08.2005 amounting to Rs. 2 Lakhs for her personal use. Whenever, defendants demanded any money, plaintiff readily gave money to them. After the wedding of defendant no2, plaintiff and defendants continued to stay at the suit property. However, plaintiff had to travel to Moradabad for his business as he was still operating his business from Moradabad. Plaintiff and defendants were in joint possession of the suit property since its purchase. In the month of January, 2006, plaintiff saw few account statements of defendant no1, which showed monetary transaction with one boy namely, Sh. Mazhar into the account of defendant no1. Defendant no1 told the plaintiff that Sh. Mazhar was a close friend of defendant no3 and regularly in touch with defendants. Plaintiff enquired CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 4 of 26 about the monetary transaction between said Sh. Mazhar and defendant no1, but she did not give satisfactory reply and stated evading and avoiding the queries of plaintiff. Thereafter, defendants no2 and 3 revealed that defendant no1 and said Sh. Mazhar were having lot of monetary transactions. On inquiry, defendant no1 revealed that said Sh. Mazhar had been lending money to defendants for their expenses. Plaintiff asked the defendants to stop all relations, transactions and contacts with said Sh. Mazhar but defendants remained quite. It is further averred that on 01.05.2006, defendants desired to invite said Sh. Mazhar to their house for certain business dealings with plaintiff, which was strictly objected by the plaintiff. When plaintiff reminded the defendants that he had purchased the suit property after selling the property of Model Town, defendants started screaming at the plaintiff and defendant no1 vocally challenged the plaintiff from stopping them from meeting, contacting and socializing with said Sh. Mazhar as and when they felt like. When plaintiff told the defendants that he shall not allow said Sh. Mazhar to come to his house, defendant no1 threatened that the house did not belong to him and suit property is registered in her name and she can physically throw out the plaintiff and never allow him to CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 5 of 26 enter into the suit property ever again and threatened him to dispossess from the suit property. It is further averred that on 02.05.2006, defendants connived together and threatened the plaintiff that he should pack his belongings and move out within 72 hours from the suit property, failing which they would call the goons, whom they had got in touch with said Sh. Mazhar and his henchman. Defendants also threatened if plaintiff would not pack his belongings by the evening of 05.05.2006, they would physically throw the plaintiff out of the suit property. Plaintiff filed a complaint with police station Greater Kailash in this regard but no action had been taken on the said complaint. Since, defendant no1 had been claiming to be the owner of suit property on the basis of registered sale deed of suit property, which was purchased benami by plaintiff in the name of defendant no1, however, entire payment had been made by plaintiff as afore elicited. Therefore, plaintiff filed the present suit, seeking declaration that he is lawful owner of suit property; also seeking mandatory injunction for getting registered sale deed dated 05.05.2005 in favour of defendant no1 as null and void; besides prayer of permanent injunction seeking restraint of defendants from transferring, alienating or part with possession of suit property or CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 6 of 26 creating third party interest in it or dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom.
2. The defendants came forward to contest the suit by filing the written statement taking preliminary objections viz., (i) the suit was false and frivolous and not maintainable in law; (ii) there was no cause of action; (iii) defendant no1 was the absolute owner of the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 05.05.2005. Plaintiff had prayed in the plaint that he should be declared to be the lawful and absolute owner of the suit property, but the plaintiff had not challenged the execution or registration of sale deed dated 05.05.2005 nor had prayed for cancellation of said sale deed. Hence, without any valid document of title the plaintiff cannot be declared as lawful owner of the suit property; (iv) plaintiff had not approached this Court with clean hands. Since 1992, there was difference of temperament, principle and lack of adjustment between the plaintiff and defendant no1. In the beginning of 2005 the situation became worst and the defendant no1 alongwith defendants no. 2 and 3 was compelled to come to Delhi for living separate from the plaintiff. Plaintiff got the suit property purchased in the name of defendant no1 and kept the other properties and factory at Moradabad in his name. The CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 7 of 26 plaintiff seldom came to Delhi in between. Plaintiff did not spend a single penny in the marriage of his son, defendant no2. Present suit had been filed only to snatch the suit property from defendants, even plaintiff had not spared his own children only because they stood by their mother against the torture of their father; (v) plaintiff had affixed insufficient court fee on the plaint; and (vi) suit is illegal and not maintainable in the eyes of law. Defendants averred that plaintiff got the suit property purchased in the name of defendant no1 and kept the other properties and factory at Moradabad in his name, hence suit property was never purchased benami by plaintiff in the name of defendant no1, as alleged and denied that the plaintiff was the legal owner of the suit property. Plaintiff had malafide intention from the beginning and with ulterior motive he visited the suit property some time in middle of December, 2005; in the presence of defendant no1 got some of his photographs with newspapers on different poses in different places in the suit property, which had been filed alongwith the suit and went back to Moradabad on next day. Whenever, plaintiff came to Delhi on 1518th January 2006, 14.02.2006, 12.03.2006 and 27.03.2006, he quarreled with defendant no1 and abused her in filthy language in the presence of defendants no2 and CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 8 of 26
3. On 27.03.2006, in the night plaintiff came to suit property and abused defendant no1 and went to assault her with a base ball bat and when defendant no1 closed the door of her room, plaintiff broke the window glass and damaged suit property. Since, defendant no1 was very afraid, at about 10.15 p.m. defendant no1 called the police on telephone but plaintiff ran away from there. Even, local police called the plaintiff on his mobile to come to police station, but plaintiff never turned up. On 28.03.2006, defendant no1 lodged her complaint with police in this regard. On 27.03.2006 at about 10.30 p.m. plaintiff left the suit property and never came back. The alleged incidents of dates 01.05.2006 and 02.05.2006 were totally wrong, mischievous and concocted. No such incidents had ever occurred as the plaintiff did not visit the suit property since 28.03.2006. Defendants admitted that plaintiff had been living at Moradabad in his ancestral home. Defendant no1 averred that she was married to plaintiff on 06.10.1976 at Moradabad, UP and plaintiff was very conservative in nature and did not allow her to talk to any male person and even used to abuse and assult her physically if she was found talking to any male person, who ever he may be. Defendant no1 had to bear all this torture of plaintiff in order to keep peace in the family and to CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 9 of 26 keep her matrimonial life alive. Defendant no1 also submitted that plaintiff was very irresponsible and never took any care of his family. On 02.06.2002, while defendants alongwith plaintiff and other family members were returning from Amritsar by car, their car met with an accident near Beas and defendant no3 was seriously injured and her head was fractured. She was given first aid in the hospital at Beas and thereafter shifted to Dr. Arora's Nursing Home at Amritsar, where she was operated upon. Plaintiff was so irresponsible and careless for the defendants that he did not bother to be beside his daughter at that time nor bothered to know about her and left from site of accident leaving defendants all alone by the road side and went back to Moradabad and on the next day went to USA. Defendant no1 further submitted that in the month of October, 2003 an attachment warrant was issued against the ancestral house of plaintiff from Tehsildars office at Moradabad and plaintiff had to pay Rs. 1,10,000/. Plaintiff knowing all this went to USA, the next day leaving burden on defendant no1. When defendant no1 informed the plaintiff on telephone about the said amount of Rs. 1,10,000/ to be paid to the Revenue Department, plaintiff asked defendant no1 to take said amount on loan from Sh. Mazhar, their family CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 10 of 26 friend. After the accident of defendant no3 in the year 2002, situation became worse and in the beginning of the year 2005 the situation became so worst that it was not possible for the plaintiff and defendant no1 to live together. Plaintiff became very suspicious towards defendant no1 and used to assault the defendant no1 in the presence of defendants no2 and 3. To get rid of the defendant no1, the plaintiff purchased suit property on 05.05.2005 in the name of defendant no1 and kept his other properties and factory at Moradabad in his name. But, defendants did not shift in the suit property till the marriage of defendant no2 on 28.11.2005. The relation between plaintiff and defendants became so sour that plaintiff did not spend a single penny in his son's marriage. Defendants shifted to Delhi permanently on 30.11.2005 but plaintiff did not shift with them. The plaintiff was habitual in making his black money white by transferring his cheques in the account of defendant no1 and get cash later on. The plaintiff never gave the amount of Rs. 2 Lakh to defendant no1. The alleged incident of 01.05.2006 was totally incorrect and concocted with an ulterior motive because defendants no. 2 and 3 were not at home since 8.00 a.m. till 9.30 - 10.00 p.m. as they were present in their offices. On 02.05.2006, the defendant no2 left for his CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 11 of 26 office at 8.00 a.m. and from office itself went to Bombay in his official tour. Hence, no question did arise of any threat from defendants to the plaintiff on 01.05.2006 and 02.05.2006 as neither plaintiff came to suit property on said dates nor defendant no2 was present at suit property on 02.05.2006. The police complaint lodged by plaintiff as alleged was also false and concocted one. Rest of the averments had been denied by defendants in toto and in particular.
3. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 03.03.2010 : ISSUES
1)Whether plaint is to be rejected for want of cause of action? OPD
2)Whether defendant no1 is the absolute owner of the suit property? OPD
3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration qua the suit property, as prayed? OPP CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 12 of 26
4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed?
OPP
5)Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of
permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP
6)Relief.
4. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 vide affidavit Ex PW1/A and Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhatia as PW2 vide affidavit Ex PW2/A. PW1 relied upon documents viz., (i) true copy of sale deeds dated 27.04.2005 and 10.05.2005 exhibited as Ex PW1/1 and Ex PW1/2, respectively; (ii) certified copy of sale deed dated 05.05.2005 exhibited as Ex PW1/3; (iii) photographs given exhibit as Ex PW1/4 (colly); (iv) original bill of photographs given exhibit as Ex PW1/5; (v) the bank account statement of defendant no1 given exhibit as Ex PW1/6; (vi) police complaint of plaintiff to SHO, P.S. Greater KailashI, dated 02.05.2006 given exhibit as Ex PW1/7; and (vii) account statement of plaintiff given exhibit as Ex PW1/8. Both the witnesses were cross examined.
CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 13 of 26
5. Defendant no1 examined herself as D1W1 vide affidavit Ex D1W1/A. D1W1 was crossexamined.
6. I have heard arguments addressed by Sh. Rajneesh Diwan, Ld. proxy counsel for plaintiff, Sh. A.K. Bhattacharya, Ld. counsel for defendants and have given thoughts to the rival contentions put forth, pleadings of the parties, evidence, written arguments of the parties, relied precedent and have also examined the record of the case. Ld. counsel for defendant has relied upon the case of Nand Kishore Mehra Vs. Sushila Mehra, AIR 1995 SC 2145.
7. My issue wise findings are as under : Findings on Issue No(1) Whether plaint is to be rejected for want of cause of action? OPD CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 14 of 26 In the plaint, plaintiff averred that after sale of his Model Town ancestral property vide sale deeds copies (i) Ex PW1/1, dated 27.04.2005; and (ii) Ex PW1/2, dated 10.05.2005 and receipt of total sale consideration of Rs. 24 Lakhs he purchased the suit property Benami in the name of his wife/defendant no1 by paying entire sale consideration of Rs. 19,50,000/ of his own. It is the case of the plaintiff that he saw in January 2006, the bank account statement of defendant no1 depicting involvement of defendant no1 with a person named Sh. Mazhar with regard to certain monetary transactions. As per plaintiff/PW1, cause of action arose when on 01.05.2006 defendants threatened to dispossess him and create third party interest in suit property. Allegedly, again defendants threatened the plaintiff giving him time till 05.05.2006 evening to pack his belongings and leave the property, failing which to throw him out.
8. In the written statement, defendant took preliminary objection no2 saying suit to be without cause of action. Registered Sale deed certified copy Ex PW1/3, dated 05.05.2005 of suit property was in favour of defendant no1. In preliminary objection no4 of written CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 15 of 26 statement, it is own averment of defendants that the plaintiff got the suit property purchased in the name of defendant no1 and kept the other properties and factory at Muradabad in his name. On merits in paraA of written statement, defendants inter alia averred that the plaintiff got the suit property purchased in the name of defendant no1 and kept the other properties and factory at Muradabad in his name. Plaintiff claimed to have purchased suit property Benami in the name of his wife/defendant no1 and has sought the relief of declaration to be declared as lawful and absolute owner of said property besides mandatory injunction for declaration of sale deed, copy Ex PW1/3, dated 05.05.2005 to be declared void besides seeking restraint of defendant from creating third party interest from alienating or dispossessing him from suit property.
9. Onus of proof of this issue was on defendants. Averments in their respective pleadings have been reiterated by the parties i.e., plaintiff as PW1 and defendant no1 as D1W1. No cogent evidence has been led by the defendants to discharge their onus on this issue nor defendants have proved that plaint is bereft of cause of action. Issue no1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants accordingly. CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 16 of 26
10. Since, issues no. 2 to 5 are inter connected, they are taken together for findings thereon.
Findings on Issues No(2), (3), (4) & (5)
2)Whether defendant no1 is the absolute owner of the suit property? OPD
3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration qua the suit property, as prayed? OPP
4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed?
OPP
5)Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP Matrimonial acrimony amongst spouses i.e. plaintiff/husband and wife (now divorced)/defendant no1 have been made vivid by the parties in their respective pleadings. Defendants CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 17 of 26 averred in written statement that since 1992 there was difference of temperament, principle and lack of adjustment between plaintiff and defendant no1. In consequence thereof, in the beginning of 2005, the situation became worst and defendant no1 with defendants no2 and 3 were compelled to come to Delhi and live separate from plaintiff. The plaintiff then got suit property purchased in name of defendant no1 and kept the other properties and factory at Muradabad in his name. Plaintiff seldom came to Delhi in between.
11. In the course of crossexamination, PW1 elicited that at Muradabad he had one office, one factory and one residential house measuring 300 yards since 2005 till date. It is the version of PW1 in crossexamination that he purchased the suit property in the name of defendant no1 to save tax. PW1 had admitted in the crossexamination that defendant no1 had filed the suit for dissolution of marriage between them on the ground of cruelty. In the course of examination, DW1 categorically stated to have been divorced from plaintiff/PW1. Divorce amongst plaintiff and defendant no1 is admitted fact. CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 18 of 26
12. Positives of photographs Ex PW1/4 (Colly) are not accompanied by any negatives nor PW1 himself had taken the photographs nor it could be so since those photographs depicted him, so without negatives these are not proved. In the event of taking of photographs by digital camera, the electronic record secondary evidence was not supported by certificate incorporating prerequisites of Sub Sections (2) and (4) of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in terms of law laid in the case of Anvar P.V vs P.K Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473, so then also such positives of photographs are inadmissible in evidence.
13. Similarly, purported bank account statement of defendant no1 given Ex PW1/6 and purported bank account statement of plaintiff/PW1 given Ex PW1/8, both being computer generated documents and not being supported by requisite certificates under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act containing pre requisites of Sub Section (2) and (4) of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in terms of law laid in Anvar P.V vs P.K Basheer & Ors.(supra); these statements are inadmissible in evidence being secondary evidence pertaining to that CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 19 of 26 electronic record.
14. Be that as it may, fact remains that as afore elicited in findings of issue no1, the written statement of defendant inter alia contains the averments that plaintiff got the suit property purchased in the name of defendant no1.
15. In order dated 30.11.2009, while dismissing application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, my Ld. Predecessor had also observed that it is the plaintiff upon whom the burden lies that the property was not purchased for the benefit of any of the defendants.
16. Section3 of The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 reads as under : "3. Prohibition of benami transaction. (1) No person shall enter into any benami transaction.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply to the purchase of property by any person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter and it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the said property had been purchased for the benefit of the wife or the unmarried daughter."
CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 20 of 26
17. In the case of Nand Kishore Mehra Vs. Sushila Mehra, AIR 1995 SC 2145; the Apex Court inter alia held that : "Since the plaintiff is the husband who had the right to enter into a benami transaction in the matter of purchase of property in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter, as we have held earlier, he is entitled to enforce his rights in the properties concerned if he can succeed in showing that he had purchased them benami in the name of his wife. But in view of the statutory presumption incorporate in subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Act, he can get relief sought in the suit only if he can prove that the properties concerned had not been purchased for the benefit of the wife, even if he succeeds in showing that the consideration for the purchases of the properties had been paid by him."
18. Affidavit Ex PW1/A of plaintiff/PW1 contains no whisper that suit property was purchased by PW1/plaintiff in name of defendant no1 but not for her benefit. In affidavit Ex PW1/A there is bald assertion that PW1/plaintiff had purchased the suit property benami in name of defendant no1 out of own (PW1) funds/sources on receipt of sale consideration of sale deeds Ex PW1/1 and Ex PW1/2. PW1/plaintiff further elicited in the course of his crossexamination that CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 21 of 26 relationship between him and defendant no1 was not good since 2002. Matrimonial acrimony inter se spouses since 2002 stands admitted by PW1. Plaintiff had an office, a factory and a 300 sq. yds. residential house in Muradabad since 2005 till 2011 when he deposed. Plaintiff had himself received sale consideration by sale of immovable properties vide sale deeds Ex PW1/1 and Ex PW1/2 in the year 2005 before purchase of suit property vide sale deed Ex PW1/3. The assertion of plaintiff of purchase of suit property in name of wife/defendant no1 benami for the purpose of tax saving per se is improbable. Having sold immovable properties vide sale deeds Ex PW1/1 and Ex PW1/2 and received their sale consideration, plaintiff/PW1 had no escape from tax liability of Income Tax/Capital Gains Tax, as applicable on the day of transactions in the financial years for the respective assessment years. Received Sale consideration of immovable properties were statutorily required to be accounted for Capital Gains Tax and required to be shown in Income Tax Returns by plaintiff.
19. In the course of his crossexamination, PW1 also admitted the suggestion that he never visited the suit property at Greater KailashI CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 22 of 26 after 27.03.2006. Though, immediately later he again said that he did not exactly remember the date. The version after second thought appears to be due to the fact that PW1/plaintiff became conscious of the fact of his pleadings for claimed reliefs; though, initially he candidly admitted of having never visited the suit property at Greater KailashI after 27.03.2006.
20. Per contra, DW1 in her affidavit Ex D1W1/A asserted the averments of her pleadings in written statement holding her ground describing the matrimonial acrimony alleging plaintiff to be conservative in nature since marriage in the year 1976 not even allowing her to talk to any male person. DW1 also averred plaintiff to be abusive and having assaulted physically if she was found talking to any male person. To keep peace in family and matrimonial life alive, DW1 had been bearing such torture and abuse. D1W1 also averred incident of 02.06.2002 when after car accident when defendant no3 was seriously injured having head fracture and consequently operated upon in Amritsar, plaintiff/PW1 left car at site of accident near Beas leaving defendants all alone by road side and went back to Moradabad and on next day having gone to USA, CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 23 of 26 thereby narrating the irresponsible and careless attitude of plaintiff towards defendants making it not possible between spouses to live together. D1W1 also alleged that plaintiff became suspicious towards her and used to assault her physically and abused her in filthy language almost daily in the presence of defendants no2 and 3 and so as to get rid of D1W1, the plaintiff purchased the suit property on 05.05.2005 in the name of and for benefit of D1W1 and kept his other properties and factory at Moradabad in his name. It is also the version of D1W1 that she was not earning anything but used to get lump sum money from her mother and brother, which was deposited in her bank account through the plaintiff. Also was averred by D1W1 that the amount paid by plaintiff from the bank account of D1W1 by the plaintiff's cheque as part consideration of suit property was not paid by the plaintiff but it was the money of D1W1. Till the marriage of defendant no2 on 28.11.2005, defendants did not shift to Delhi. D1W1 alleged that relation between parties to suit became so sour that not a single penny was spent by plaintiff in marriage of his son. Defendants shifted to Delhi permanently on 30.11.2005 but the plaintiff did not shift with them. As per D1W1, since 1992 there was difference of temperament, principles and lack of CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 24 of 26 adjustment between the spouses and situation became worst in the beginning of 2005, which later on led to purchase of the suit property by plaintiff in name of defendant no1 for the benefit of defendant no1 and thereby the plaintiff kept other properties and factory at Moradabad in his name. D1W1 further asserted that suit property was never purchased benami in her name as alleged. Elicited evidence is shorn of any fact proved that suit property was purchased by plaintiff that for benefit of defendant no1. The elicited version of defendant no1 in the fact of the matter appears to be more probable. There was no estoppel for plaintiff to purchase the suit property in his own name consequent upon receipt of funds allegedly from sources arising out of sale considerations of immovable properties sold vide sale deeds Ex PW1/1 and Ex PW1/2. Defendant no1/D1W1 has been able to prove by preponderance of probability that suit property was purchased for her benefit. So, defendant no1 being the registered title holder vide sale deed Ex PW1/3 of suit property is the absolute owner of the suit property. Plaintiff is not entitled for decree of declaration as lawful and absolute owner of suit property as claimed. Consequent thereto, plaintiff is also not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction for adjudication of sale deed, copy Ex CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 25 of 26 PW1/3 void. Also, plaintiff is not entitled for any permanent injunction for restraint of defendants from creating third party interest or alienating the suit property. Defendant no1 being absolute owner of the suit property is vested with all legal rights to deal with the suit property as she deems fit. Issues no2, 3, 4 and 5 are decided in favour of defendant no1 and against the plaintiff accordingly.
RELIEF
21. In view of my findings with respect to the above issues no. 2, 3, 4 and 5, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court (GURVINDER PAL SINGH) on 14th Day of January, 2016. Addl. Distt. Judge01 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(AD) CS325/2009 Sh. Ravi Nandan Bhatia Vs. Ms. Meena Bhatia & Ors. Page 26 of 26