Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(vi) Directing the defendant to pay the costs of the suit.

3.(i) The appellant, as plaintiff, has filed the suit contending that her father Late. Sampathi Bhoopal was a dance master and he died on 30.05.1976. http://www.judis.nic.in According to the plaintiff, under the able guidance of her father, she learnt Classical Bharatha Naatiyam and specialised in 108 Karnas and she was the only unique Bharatha Nattiyam Dancer of that class. The plaintiff became so popular in the field of dance that she was adopted by the Government of Tamil Nadu as "State Dancer" and she was also conferred with the title "Kalaimamani" recognising her contribution to the field of art. The Plaintiff has performed innumerable dance programmes ever since 1960 not only in Tamil Nadu, but also throughout India and 52 countries out of India, until March 1991, when she got married and thereafter stopped performing dance programmes.

(ii) According to the plaintiff, during the period when she was performing dance programmes, both in India and abroad, she was getting decent professional income. At that time, the defendant, who is her younger sister, was unemployed and she had no independent source of income. Therefore, the plaintiff appointed the defendant as her agent to manage her private and financial affairs. The plaintiff practically gave all her income to the defendant to run the family and to save the money she earned by investing the same in properties. The plaintiff reposed absolute faith, trust and confidence in the defendant, especially when the defendant was her younger sister. The confidence which the plaintiff reposed in the defendant, was fortified by the fact that between 1977 and 1991, the defendant associated herself in the dance programmes by playing Nattuvangam and assisted the plaintiff as a Nattuvanganist in the troupe. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that during the relevant period, the defendant was in total control of the financial affairs of the plaintiff, not only to take care of the family, but also attending to property affairs, dance programmes etc.,

(v) It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was given in marriage during the year 1978 and her husband was a Diploma Engineer. The husband of the defendant did not get any employment and therefore, he was also asked to look after the financial affairs, tax matters and dance programme of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant and her husband were in complete custody and control of the account books, correspondence with auditors and income tax assessment with respect to the earnings of the plaintiff. It is for the purpose of filing of Income Tax Returns, it was projected that as if the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the plaint described item No.1 of the property and that the defendant and her mother are entitled to remaining 1/3rd share each. Thus, the properties described in item No.1 to 3 of the plaint were purchased with the exclusive funds earned by the plaintiff through her dance programmes. In fact, a dance hall was constructed in the second floor of the property described as item No.1 in the plaint with the funds of the plaintiff. Further, at the time of purchase, the property described as item No.2 of the plaint, was vacant with a partly constructed building in the ground floor and it http://www.judis.nic.in was the plaintiff, who, with her funds, developed the same.

29. Point No.1:- The Plaintiff is the sister of the defendant. The plaintiff and defendant are daughters of Ranjini Bhopal, PW2. According to the plaintiff, even in her young age, she had learnt the nuances of the art of Bharata Natyam from her father and shot to fame. She had participated in several dance programmes in India and abroad and had earned accolades as one of the eminent dancers who had specialised in 108 Karanas. The plaintiff also claims herself as the unique Bharatha Natyam Dancer of that class. The expertise and specialisation of the plaintiff in the field of dance, was also acknowledged by the Government of Tamil Nadu, by conferring her the title "State Dancer" of Tamil Nadu. The plaintiff was http://www.judis.nic.in also conferred with the title "Kalaimaamani" by the Government of Tamil Nadu. According to the plaintiff, through her Bharatha Natyam dance performance, she had earned immensely. At the same time, due to her pre-occupation with her dance programmes, she was not in a position to deal with the money earned. At that time, the defendant was unemployed and therefore, the plaintiff appointed the defendant as her agent and entrusted all the monies she had earned to her. Subsequently, the defendant got married in the year 1978 and her husband was also asked to look after the financial affairs of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant and her husband were entrusted with all financial affairs, they had correspondence with the Auditors, dealt with her Bank Accounts etc., Having regard to the proximity of relationship, the plaintiff reposed absolute faith and confidence in the defendant and her husband that they would faithfully and honestly deal with the earnings of the plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaint described item Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the properties were purchased by the defendant out of the exclusive earnings of the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff that for the purpose of Tax compliance, the plaintiff had chosen to purchase the property described as item No.1 in the plaint in her name along with the names of the defendant and their mother. Similarly, for the same purpose, the property described as item No.2 in the plaint, was purchased in the name of the defendant and their mother. In the case of the property described as item No.3 in the plaint, it was purchased by the defendant in her own name, however, the funds for purchasing the property had been provided by none other than the plaintiff. Further, either the defendant or her mother did not contribute any amount for purchasing the plaint described properties in item Nos.1 to 3. In other words, according to the plaintiff, the defendant was not resourceful enough and has no independent source of http://www.judis.nic.in income to purchase the properties described in the plaint or to contribute any amount for purchase of the properties. The plaintiff was the only earning member and the defendant received a meagre salary from her for having acted as her agent. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the transaction relating to purchase of the properties described as item Nos. 1 to 3 in the plaint, is a "benami transaction". To fortify this submission, the plaintiff placed reliance on the settlement deeds executed by her mother in respect of the properties described as item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint and submitted that, inasmuch as the properties described as item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint, have been purchased exclusively with the funds of the plaintiff, the mother, PW2, acknowledging the title of the plaintiff, had executed the Settlement deeds. Similarly, the defendant also executed a registered Will dated 19.06.1991 bequeathing her apparent 1/3rd share in the property described as item No.1 in the plaint, which according to the plaintiff would only strengthen her case that the transaction in the instant case is a "benami". According to the plaintiff, even though the defendant was ready to execute necessary documents to fortify her title with respect to the properties described as plaint item Nos.2 and 3, due to misunderstanding and dispute between them, she refused to acknowledge the title of the plaintiff. Notwithstanding the same, the defendant trespassed into a portion of the item No.1 of the properties and unlawfully occupied it. This is the sum and substance with which the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for declaration and recovery of possession.