Smt. Shashi Jain vs Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta on 4 August, 2016
15. Even otherwise from the statement being made by the
defendant in suit bearing no. 39/2013 titled as Pawan Vs. Shashi Jain the
defendant has admitted a fact that he has contributed some amount
New CS No. : 10035/16 Page 6/9
towards the purchase of the suit property and he further admitted that he
has to vacate the suit property only after receiving the payment being
made by him towards the consideration amount for purchase of the suit
property. So, it may be possible that defendant could have contributed
some amount It means that the defendant has only contributed some
amount the purchase of the suit property. But it does not mean that he
became co-owner in the suit property. At the most, he can claim the
recovery of the amount which has been contributed (if any) by him in the
purchase of suit property. The statement made by the defendant in suit no.
39/2013 is relevant which negates his claim of being co-owner in the suit
property.