OS.32/2021 (Fair)
1
APKR010002772021
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SENIOR DIVISION), MACHILIPATNAM
Present: Sri Ch.Yugandhar,
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam
Friday, this the 10 th day of April, 2026
Original Suit No. 32/2021
BETWEEN:
Kumbham Surya Nagamma, W/o Nancharaiah, Hindu, Aged about 30 years, Housewife, R/o Loya Dibba, Southern street, Eluru, West Godavari District.
..Plaintiff
AND
Kumbham Nancharaiah, S/o Veereswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 32 years, Properties, R/o Nadupuru, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District.
...Defendant
This suit is coming before me on for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.L.Narasimha Rao, B.Ashok Kumar, Advocates for the Plaintiff and Sri S.Balaji Rao, Advocate for Defendant; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court made the following:
:: JUDGMENT::
01.The suit is filed to declare the title and right over the suit schedule property and directed the defendant to handover the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff, besides the costs of the suit.
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
2
02.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
(a) The plaintiff is a legally wedded wife of the defendant and their marriage was performed on 07.07.2007. The plaintiff is a dumb lady.
However, the defendant was interested in marrying the plaintiff. During their wedlock, they both were blessed with two male children. They lived happily for about two years. Later, taking advantage of the weakness of the plaintiff, as she is a dumb woman, the defendant started harassing the plaintiff to bring money from her parents. The plaintiff’s brothers paid cash on several occasions and also provided 4 sovereigns worth of gold ornaments. On 10.12.2018, the plaintiff’s brothers, namely Merugumala
Nagabhushanam and Merugumala Rangababu, had purchased a property worth of Rs.29,60,000/- to an extent of Ac.1.25 cents in R.S.No.21-4 and
Ac.0.60 cents in total Ac.1.85 cents, Pedana, Krishna District, which is the suit schedule property herein, on the name of the plaintiff and defendant jointly towards pasupu kumkuma of the plaintiff. On the date of purchase of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff and defendant were put in possession of the said property. Since then, the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on behalf of the plaintiff up to the date. So, the suit schedule property is the plaintiff's stridhana property. The brothers of the plaintiff, i.e., Merugumala
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
3
Nagabhushanam and Rangababu, paid an amount of Rs.22,90,000/- to the defendant in the presence of elders for the construction of a new house. But the defendant did not construct any house. The defendant utilized the said amount for his vices, such as drinking and gambling,
(b) On 12.02.2021, the defendant and his father, along with the plaintiff, came to the house of the plaintiff on a bike at Eluru and demanded that she pay Rs.5,00,000/- to them. Despite the plaintiff expressing her inability to provide the said amount as demanded by the defendant and his father, she was beaten by them in the presence of her mother and brothers in a cruel manner and left her at her parents’ house. Thereby, the defendant necked out the plaintiff by demanding that she bring additional dowry. The plaintiff’s mother, by name Merugumala Nagamani, filed a report with the Eluru I Town Police Station on 19.02.2021. The Police registered a case under Cr. No. 60/2021 for the offences punishable under Secs. 498-A, 506, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC. The plaintiff also issued a legal notice to the defendant on 04.05.2021, but it was refused by the defendant. The defendant did not hand over the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. As the suit schedule property is the stridhana property of the plaintiff, the defendant has no right to enjoy the same. The defendant has failed to look after the welfare of his wife, i.e.,
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
4 the plaintiff and his children. Hence, the plaintiff filed this suit, claiming that her title and right over the suit schedule property are to be declared in her favour, that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and seeking consequential recovery of possession. Hence, this suit.
03.The brief averments of the written statement of the defendant are as follows:
(a)The defendant denied all the plaint pleadings paragraph-wise, including that the scheduled property was purchased by the plaintiff’s brothers in the names of the plaintiff and the defendant jointly as pasupukumkuma for the plaintiff and that the property became stridhana property of the plaintiff. However, the defendant inter alia submitted that the schedule property was purchased by the defendant with his own earnings, and that he paid the cash supplied by his father, in addition to his hard-earned earnings, for the purchase of the said property. But he obtained the sale deed even in the plaintiff's name, apart from his name.
So, the schedule property becomes an absolute property of the defendant, and no single paisa contributed by the plaintiff’s brothers and therefore, the allegations that the schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff’s brothers towards pasupukumkuma of the plaintiff are absolutely incorrect.
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
5
(b) As the defendant is the absolute owner of the property, he has been enjoying the same and he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, the plaintiff never exercised any right in the schedule property and she never in possession and enjoyment of the property and the defendant alone is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule property since from the date of purchase. So, the plaintiff has no right or title, and therefore she is not entitled to ask for a declaration, nor to recover the same. The suit is vexatious and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. Since no cause of action ever accrued to the plaintiff against the defendant, and the cause of action as alleged in the plaint is neither true nor valid. Hence, the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit with costs.
04.Based on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor settled the following issues:
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property as prayed for?
iii) To what relief?
05.During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and marked as Exs. A1 to A4. On behalf of the defendant,
D.W.1 was examined, and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on their behalf.
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
6
Issues No.1 and 2:
06.Prior to answering to the issues in dispute, it is incumbent upon the
Court to examine and evaluate the submissions and contentions put forth by learned counsel, having considered the material placed on record.
Submissions on behalf of plaintiff:
07. Written arguments filed on behalf of the plaintiff, apart from oral submissions. The learned counsel for the plaintiff inter alia contends through their written arguments that the stridhana property is absolute and exclusive property of Hindu women, therefore, the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and there is no proof for the defendant to show that they have such financial capacity to purchase the suit schedule property and the defendant has no source of income as he does not possess movable and immovable properties and the defendant’s father is depending on his old age pension and as per Ex.B1 and B2, one of the property sold away and another property has given up through relinquishment deed, so the defendant has no properties and even when the suit OS.230/2020 was came to be dismissed, infers that the defendant’s father has no capacity to lent the money, so in the circumstances, the contention of the defendant that they have purchased the property covered under Ex.A1 cannot be believed. It is further
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
7 contended that the defendant intentionally withhold the children with him with an intention to grab the suit schedule property when the plaintiff sought for custody of the children and no mother intends to let of her children and the defendant did not take any plea with regard to his children in his written statement, but in his chief examination affidavit he raised the topic of their children at the first time, as such, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Biraji @ Brijiraji and another
Vs. Surya Pratap and others, AIR Online 2020 SC 806, where there are no pleadings, the evidence and arguments cannot be valid and cannot be relied upon by the Court. It is further contented that in view of the recitals in Ex.A1 when it was proved that the sale consideration was paid by plaintiff’s brothers and it is a stridhana property, so it is absolute property of the plaintiff and that she is entitled to declare of title over the entire suit schedule property as exclusive owner and she is entitled for consequential relief after recovery of possession. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for a decree in favour of the plaintiff.
Submissions on behalf defendant:
08. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that there is no specific prayer for a declaration of title; as such, the foundation of the pleading for a declaration was not specifically
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
8 pleaded in the plaint. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek a declaration. So, on that score, the suit is not maintainable.
09. The learned counsel further contended that if the recitals are read as contended by the plaintiff, it will be stated that the transaction under
Ex.A1 is a benami transaction. So, Section 4 of the Benami Prohibition
Act comes into play, and the plaintiff is prohibited from filing the suit. No law is authenticated to seek a declaration as the absolute owner in respect of the property for which the consideration was paid by another person. As the vendor was not examined to prove the passing of consideration from whom to him. In this case, only the plaintiff and her brother, PW.2, made self-claimed statements; however, there is no cogent evidence to prove that the plaintiff's brothers had actually paid the sale consideration under Ex.A1. As such, the suit cannot be sustained and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
Discussion and Findings
10. Having heard of both sides and perused the material available on record, the specific case of the plaintiff is that she is legally wedded wife of the defendant and as she is dumb woman, since the defendant has shown interest to marry her, the brothers of the plaintiff namely
Nagabhushanam and Ranga Babu had purchased the suit schedule
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
9 property in the joint names of the plaintiff and her husband/defendant and that the property has given to them towards pasupukumkuma.
11. In this regard, the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 by filing her chief examination affidavit by reiterating the same contents of her plaint averments. Apart from her oral testimony, she also relied on documentary evidence, Exs.A1 to A3.
12. Ex.A1 is a certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 10.12.2018. The recitals of Ex. A1 are germane to proving the plaintiff’s case. As seen from the contents of Ex.A1, which is a sale deed, under which the property covered therein had been purchased in the name of one Kumbham Nancharaiah and one Kumbham Surya Nagamma, who are no other than the plaintiff and defendant herein. The recitals of Ex.A1 further disclose that the sale consideration was paid by one Merugumala
Nagabhushanam and Merugumala Ranga Babu, who are the brothers-in-law of the defendant herein and the brothers of the plaintiff, towards the plaintiff's stridhana.
13. As per the recitals of Ex.A1/sale deed, it was purchased in the names of the plaintiff and the defendant, but the sale consideration was said to have been paid by the brothers of the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant.
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
10
14. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff is a dumb person. As such, this Court had also taken the assistance of an interpreter by the name
Buddhi Sankara Rao, who has a qualification of B.Ed., in hearing and impairment and working as a Teacher of Special Educature in C.R.Reddy
Public School for disabled persons, at the time of recording the evidence of plaintiff/PW.1.
15. But in this case, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant took place on 07.07.2007. Whereas the property under Ex.A1 was purchased on 10.12.2018. It seems that for nearly 11 years of their marriage, the property under Ex.A1 had been purchased. The plaintiff claims that the said property is her stridhana. It was not purchased and given to them in connection with their marriage. Further, the said property was purchased in the joint names of the plaintiff and defendant. Now, it has to be seen whether the payment of the sale consideration made by plaintiff’s brothers on their behalf would be a determinative factor in considering that the said property is stridhana property of plaintiff alone.
16. In this regard, Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 deals with
Property of female Hindu to be her absolute property – (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
11
Explanation:- In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.
17. Here, in the instant case, the suit property was not inherited or acquired by the plaintiff through a gift. Even in the recitals of the sale deed, though it was mentioned that the sale consideration paid by the brothers of the plaintiff, nowhere is it suggested that the said payment made by them on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant was a gift. Further, when the property stands in the joint names of plaintiff and defendant, certainly the said property belongs to both of them, although the sale consideration paid by the brothers of the plaintiff only. Mere payment made by the brothers of the plaintiff alone cannot be a decisive factor to say that the sale consideration has been paid by the brothers of the plaintiff on their own. The brothers of the plaintiff might have taken an active role at the time of execution of the sale deed under Ex.A1, so at
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
12 that time the plaintiff and defendant might have paid the sale consideration through the plaintiff’s brothers to the vendor.
18. In this regard, the information elicited during the cross-examination of PW.1 is of great significance. Where PW.1 stated that at the time of preparing Ex.A1 at Pedana Sub-Registrar office, herself, her two brothers and her father-in-law were present, and that the consideration amount of
Ex.A1 was given by her two younger brothers and her father that was paid by her to her vendor under Ex.A1 and that there is no documentary proof to show that the said amount was secured from her two younger brothers and her father. She further stated that she had withdrawn Rs.4,78,247/- from her bank account. It is further elicited that her father-in-law filed a suit against her brothers for recovery of Rs.12,00,000/- based on the promissory note, and that subsequently, she filed this suit.
19. As per Ex.A1, the market value of the property is Rs.51,43,000/-.
However, the registration value of the property was Rs.29,60,000/- at that time. So, naturally, the property purchase is based on market value.
Therefore, the plaintiff or her brothers should have proved that they had an amount of Rs.51,43,000/- at the relevant time of execution of Ex.A1/ sale deed. Even if it is taken into consideration, at least the plaintiff and her brothers should have shown their capability to pay the registered
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
13 value of the property in tune with Rs 29,60,000/-.
20. The said amounts are substantial, and in that regard, the plaintiff should have established the source of income of their brothers and how they procured the amounts to purchase the property. Although one of the brothers of the plaintiff was examined as PW.2 and he filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of the chief examination and inter alia deposed that on 10.12.2018, he and his brother by name Merugumalla
Ranga Babu purchased the suit schedule property for Rs.29,60,000/- in an extent of Ac.1.25 cents in R.S.No.21-4 and Ac.0.60 cents, totalling
Ac.1.85 cents on the name of the plaintiff and defendant jointly towards
Pasupukumkuma.
21. Except for his oral evidence, he did not adduce any documentary evidence to show how he and his brother procured the funds for the purchase of the property. However, during cross-examination, he stated that there is documentary proof to show that as on the date of execution of Ex.A1/sale deed, i.e., on 10.12.2018, they possessed an amount of
Rs.29,60,000/- to purchase the suit schedule property, but they did not file any proof before this Court to that effect.
22. After concluding his cross-examination, he was recalled by a common orders in IAs.69, 70 and 71 of 2026 to mark the document.
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
14
Accordingly, Ex.A4, which is a certified copy of the decree and judgment in OS.230/2020 on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Machilipatnam dated 03.08.2023, filed to show that the father of the defendant has no financial capacity to provide money at the time of
Ex.A1/sale deed, since the suit OS.230/2020 which was filed by the defendant’s father against them for recovery of money was dismissed on the grounds that the father of the defendant has no capacity to lent money.
23. In this regard, when PW.2 was put to cross-examination, he stated that the father of the defendant preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment in OS.230/2020 under Ex.A4, and that the said appeal is still pending before the court of law. It is further elicited that, as per findings in Ex.A4, it was not probable to avail a loan/debt from the father of the defendant in view of the existence of disputes between both families by that time.
24. The plaintiff, PW.2, must adduce positive evidence by establishing that they have sufficient financial capacity and a reliable source of funds to purchase the property under Ex.A1. Instead, they tried to discredit the defendant's contention by producing evidence that the suit in
OS.230/2020 was dismissed by the Court.
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
15
25. Here, another point to note is that the vendor of Ex.A1 should have been examined by the plaintiff, since the vendor of Ex.A1 is the best person to say who actually paid the sale consideration and what amount was paid by them. Mere mention in the recitals of Ex.A1 that the brothers of the plaintiff had paid the sale consideration alone cannot be germane to decide that they paid it from their own pocket. Had it been true, the plaintiff’s brothers should have executed the sale deed only in the name of their sister, i.e., plaintiff, and there is no necessity for them to get the sale deed executed in the joint names of the plaintiff and defendant.
26. It is not the contention of plaintiff/PW.1 or PW.2 that because of the harassment or taunting by the defendant, they were led to execute the said sale deed/Ex.A1 on the joint names of both of them. In fact, there are no instances to show the disputes were existence between the plaintiff and defendant during the relevant time of Ex.A1/sale deed. Infact, the disputes arose only between them in 2021. In interregnum, the defendant’s father evidently filed a suit in OS.230/2020 against one of the brothers of the defendant, by name Merugumalla Nagabhushanam, for recovery of money. Though the suit OS.230/2020 was dismissed under
Ex. A4, the fact remains that there are some financial disputes between the father of the defendant and the brothers of the plaintiff. As such, the
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
16 contention of the learned counsel of the defendant cannot be ruled out that this suit was filed after the suit filed by her father-in-law against her brothers for the recovery of money. It is also pertinent to observe that only after filing the suit OS.230/2020, the actual disputes started between the couple, which were led by the plaintiff to lodge a report before SHO,
I-Town P.S Eluru on 19.02.2021 and got registered a case in
Cr.No.60/2021 for the offence U/Sec.498-A , 506 and 323, r/w 34 IPC. So, the marital relationship between the plaintiff and defendant has been strained for whatever reasons, but there is no evidence to show that on the date of purchase of the property under Ex.A1, the disputes between them had been prevailing. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be inferred that the said property was purchased under Ex. A1 only because of harassment or coercion by the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff. As seen from the record, the disputes began between them only after her father-in-law filed the suit in OS.230/2020. This can also be inferred from the contents of the legal notice under Ex. A2, where it is clearly mentioned that when she questioned her father-in-law about the filing of a false suit in OS.230/2020, she was beaten and driven away from the house by the defendant and his father on 19.02.2021.
27. Another relevant circumstance, as revealed during the cross
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
17 examination of PW.1, is that PW.1 developed significant aversion and animosity not only towards her husband/defendant, but also towards her children. PW.1 categorically deposed that she did not initiate any legal proceedings seeking custody of her children, nor did she make any enquiries regarding their welfare or education subsequent to the separation from her husband/defendant. PW.1 further stated that she has no intention to seek custody of her children, nor is she willing to reside with the defendant and their children, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant put up a separate household for them, without involvement of his in-laws, and that she has no desire to communicate with her children.
It has also been elicited that the plaintiff is aware of the well-being of her brother, his children, and her mother, rather than knowing the welfare of her children and that, in the event the Court decrees this suit in her favour, she intends to transfer the schedule property to her brother and her mother for the maintenance. The plaintiff further deposed that she maintains a cordial relationship with her brother and mother, and, since her brother's family is attending to her needs, she is not inclined to reside with the defendant and their children.
28. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff/PW.1, it seems that she has acted under the direction and influence of her
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
18 brothers, having instituted the present suit with an oblique motive of getting back the property in question. The plaintiff has not alleged, nor has it been established, that the defendant/husband has vices or is wasting the property to satisfy such habits, although there is an allegation in the plaint that the defendant misappropriated the funds provided by the plaintiff’s brothers for the purpose of constructing the house. However, there is no substantiating evidence. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not specifically pleaded that the suit property is at risk of being wasted in a similar manner, except for her bald and unsubstantiated assertions.
Moreover, though their marital relationship has been strained, it has not yet ended, and they are still husband and wife in the eyes of society. If at all, really, she does not want to continue the relationship with the defendant, and if she was subjected to such harassment by the defendant to the extent of lodging a criminal case against him, the plaintiff should have filed a divorce case by this time. But she did not do so, indicating that the plaintiff has a soft corner towards her husband/defendant. In the absence of any allegations of vices to waste the property by the defendant, the plaintiff being a dumb woman, who cannot deal the property on her own, and when their relationship as husband and wife being subsistence, why she was constrained to file this suit with a view to
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
19 get back the property from the possession of her husband/defendant has not been clarified properly. So, it can be said that there is no proper cause of action to file this suit.
29. It is also relevant to note that during the cross-examination of the defendant/DW.1, nothing worthy is elicited to probable the plaintiff's plea that the sale consideration was actually paid by the plaintiff’s brother, and there is no contribution of the defendant. Moreover, in view of the suggestion put to DW.1 that with an apprehension his wife would file maintenance case or to claim right in the property, he filed petition
U/Sec.9 of Hindu Marriage Act against his wife despite he has no love and affection towards his wife and that with a view to get back his wife into his conjugal fold by hook or crook in order to enjoy her property, this fact denotes that the defendant/DW.1 had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife. So, it seems that the defendant is always ready and willing to take her back, but the plaintiff, who is under the influence of her brothers, stayed away from her husband and children.
Though the defendant/DW.1 filed the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 17.03.2001 and certified copy of relinquishment deed dated 17.11.2005 under Ex.B1 and Ex.B2, the significance of these documents does not attach much weight since it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
20 prove their case, when the plaintiff is asserting the fact that her brothers had paid the entire sale consideration on their own for purchase of the property under Ex.A1. When the plaintiff has failed to prove the said fact, and even after examining her brother as PW.2 on her behalf does not give any effect, and absolutely there is no evidence to show that the plaintiff’s brothers had paid the entire sale consideration on their own, except for mentioning the same in the recitals of Ex.A1. As observed above, the vendor of Ex.A1 is the right person to clarify the said aspect, but the plaintiff or her brothers did not choose to examine the vendor of Ex.A1.
Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff cannot be countenanced.
30. At this juncture it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in Sangeeta Gera Vs. Sanjeev Gera 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1243, wherein their lordship has observed on the question for consideration is whether the respondent is entitled to a 50% share in the proceeds of the property held jointly by the parties, as under:
“30. The learned counsel for the respondent had contended that the said proceeds have become part of the respondent’s stridhana under Section 14 of the H.S.A and therefore, she has the exclusive ownership over the same. However, a property jointly purchased at the time of marriage cannot be treated as the stridhana of woman as stridhana is confined to those properties which are gifted to her voluntarily by her parents, relatives, husband or in-laws, either before or after the marriage
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
21 and which are intended for her exclusive ownership and enjoyment. A jointly acquired property purchased in the name of both spouses, is by its very nature a joint asset and cannot fall within the ambit of stridhana, since it is not a gift exclusively made to the wife but rather an acquisition contributed to and held by both parties.
31. Normally, when a husband and wife acquire property during the subsistence of marriage, the presumption in law is that such acquisition is made from common family funds and that both spouses have contributed equally, irrespective of whether one of them is earning or not. In the present case, the subject property was purchased in the joint names of the husband and wife, although it is an admitted position that the entire consideration, including the payments of EMIs, was borne solely by the appellant/husband. It is further a matter of record that the tiel of the subject property is held in the names of both spouses as joint owners, and even the account in HSBC Bank, in which the surplus amount was deposited, was maintained in the joint names of the parties.
32. In this regard, a reference may be made to Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as “Benami Act”], which sets out as follows: “4. Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami- (1)No suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. (2) No defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property.”
33. Section 4 creates an absolute bar against the enforcement of rights in respect of property held benami. It
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
22 stipulates that no person claiming to be the real owner of such property can institute any suit, claim, or action to enforce rights against the benamidar or any other person in whose name the property stands. Equally, it prohibits the raising of any defence in a pending suit, claim or action on the ground that the property, though standing in the name of another, actually belongs to the real owner. The combined effect of sub-Section (1) and (2) is that the real owner is entirely disabled from seeking recognition of any right, title or interest in the benami property, either by way of initiating proceedings or by way of defence.
34. In this backdrop, once the property stands in the joint names of the spouses, the husband cannot be permitted to claim exclusive ownership merely on the ground that he alone provided the purchase consideration. Such a plea would contravene Section 4 of the Benami Act, which imposes an absolute bar against the enforcement of rights in respect of the property held benami. The provision clearly stipulates that no person claiming to be the real owner of the property standing in another’s name can either institute proceedings or raise a defense asserting such ownership. Thus, the combined effect of the presumption of equal ownership between spouses and the statutory prohibition under Section 4 is that the Appellant is prevented from contending that the amount from the sale of joint property belongs to him alone.”
31. In view of the above proposition of law, even in the instant case, the plaintiff, being the wife alone, cannot claim exclusive ownership over the suit schedule property, which was alleged to have been purchased under
Ex.A1 through the funds of her brothers. For seeking a declarative relief of title pertaining to the property, the title that flows from the sale deed is a decisive factor than that of who paid consideration thereof. So, when
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
23
Ex.A1 stands jointly in the names of husband and wife, they both become co-owners of the said property, and as such, the plaintiff alone cannot be declared the exclusive and absolute owner of the entire suit schedule property. A recital mentioning that the purchase money paid by the wife’s brothers may serve as evidence of the source of funds. However, it does not automatically override the joint title or convert the joint ownership into the wife’s exclusive ownership. Eventually, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the entire suit schedule property from her co-owner. Thus, issues
Nos. 1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiff.
Issue No.3
32. With the observations and findings above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit fails and is liable to be dismissed.
33. In the result, the suit is dismissed. However, in view of the nature of the dispute and the relation between the parties, both parties shall bear their own costs.
In my dictation directly typed by Steno, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 10th day of April, 2026.
Digitally Signed by
CHADALAVADACHADALAVADA YUGANDHAR
YUGANDHARDate: 2026.04.10 12:38:23 +0530
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Machilipatnam.
OS.32/2021 (Fair)
24
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiffs: PW.1/Kumbham Surya Nagamma PW.2/Merugumala Nagabushanam
For Defendants DW.1/Kumbham Nancharaiah
Documents Marked
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A.1/Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 10.12.2018 executed by Zakriyabeig in favour of plaintiff and defendant.
Ex.A.2/Office copy of legal notice issued by plaintiff to the defendant
dated 04.05.2021.
Ex.A.3/Returned legal notice dated 12.05.2021.
Ex.A.4/Certified copy of decree and judgment in OS.230/2020 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Machilipatnam dated 03.08.2023.
For Defendants:
Ex.B.1/Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 17.03.2001.
Ex.B.2/Certified copy of relinquishment deed, which stands in the name of father of defendant dated 17.11.2005. Digitally Signed by
CHADALAVADACHADALAVADA YUGANDHAR
YUGANDHARDate: 2026.04.10 12:38:55 +0530
Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division)
Machilipatnam.