POONAM SINGH RAWAT vs BHARAT SINGH RAWAT

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: August 03, 2023
Pronounced on: December 04, 2023
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 139/2022 & CM APPL. 39911-12/2022 & CM APPL. 39484/2023

POONAM SINGH RAWAT …… Appellant
Through: In person with Ms. Seema Durrary, Advocate.
Versus
BHARAT SINGH RAWAT …..Respondent
Through: In person
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
JUDGMENT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J
1. The Appeal bearing no. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 139/2022 has been preferred by the wife, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2022 passed by the learned Family Court in Civil Suit being CS OS No.7/2019 (old CS (OS) No.04/2019), whereby the suit filed by the husband seeking declaration of title, recovery and possession in respect of suit property i.e. Maruti Alto 800 Green LXI B-S IV, Registration No. DL 8 CAL 2127, has been allowed.
2. The brief facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised in Arya Samaj Mandir on 20.01.2005. Due to disputes between the parties, they separated in June, 2018. The husband filed a suit bearing no. CS (OS) No. 7/2019 for Declaration of Title, Recovery and Possession, along with Permanent and Mandatory Injunction in respect of Maruti Alto 800 Green LXI B-S IV Registration No. DL8CAL2127 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’) against the wife before the learned Family Court in 2019. He had claimed that during the subsistence of their marriage, he had purchased four immovable properties and other movable properties in the name of his wife.
3. The husband averred in the said suit that the suit property in question was purchased on 01.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.3,81,313/- for which both the parties had taken a joint car loan. However, he had made all the payments for the same. According to the husband, he had paid a sum of Rs.61,313/- in cash and EMIs amounting to Rs.5,300/- were paid against the loan amount of Rs.3,20,000/-. Besides this, the amount of Insurance and Pollution Certificate was also paid by the husband. He claimed that the said property was purchased in the name of his wife to show his love and affection and to save the interest on loan lawfully and for the benefit of family as a whole.
4. In the written statement filed before the learned Family Court, the wife raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of the suit and denied that the vehicle in question was purchased by the husband. She alleged that her husband never gave her importance and denied that he had purchased the car to show his love and affection towards her. The wife averred that the vehicle i.e. the car, was purchased from the money by selling her jewellery and taking help from her maternal home. She averred that her brother and sister-in-law gave her cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which the husband deposited in his bank account and later withdrew to purchase the car. The wife pleaded that this vehicle was the only source of transport to take the children to the school and if the suit of husband is allowed, it would hamper study of their children. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned Family Court framed the following issues:-
“(i) Whether the present is maintainable in its present form ? (OPP)
(ii) Whether the plaintiff Is entitled for decree of declaration as prayed ? (OPP)
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession as prayed? (OPP)
(iv) Whether the plaintiff – is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? (OPP)
(v) Whether the plaintiff, is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? (OPP)”

5. In support of his case, the husband examined himself as PW-1; Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Mayur Vihar as PW-2 and Branch Manager, SBI SRCC Branch as PW-3. The wife examined herself as DW-1 in the said suit.
6. The learned Family Court on the basis of evidence led by the parties, decided the afore-noted issues in its judgement and decree dated 23.04.2022, while holding as under:-
“Issue No.1 In the present case, the wife is owner of car and property was purchased for the welfare of whole family. In view of the judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, I am of the view that the present suit is maintainable in its present form. The plaintiff is able to prove this issue. Accordingly, the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 2 & 3 Both the issues, are interconnected and can be decided together. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that car was purchased in the name of defendant due to love and affection and for benefit of ail the family. Thus, the plaintiff is able to prove issues no.’ ‘2 & 3and both the issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against. the defendant.
Issue No. 4 & 5 The burden to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff (husband). The plaintiff ‘has not made any specific prayer .for permanent injunction. Thus, in absence of any specific prayer of permanent injunction, I am not inclined to pass a decree of permanent injuction. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant (wife) and against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 5 The burden to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff (husband). The plaintiff has not made any specific prayer for mandatory injunction. Thus, in absence of any specific prayer and I am of the view that plaintiff is not entitled for decree of mandatory injunction. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant (wife) and against- the plaintiff.
Relief
In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed and a decree of declaration declaring that entire payment of suit property was made by the plaintiff and he is declared owner of the suit property i.e. Maruti -ALTO 800 Green LXI B-S lV, Registration No. DL 8C AL 2127. A decree of possession of suit property is also passed in favour of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff is entitled for the possession of suit property. The plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared.”

7. Aggrieved, by the aforesaid judgement whereby the husband was declared the owner of the moveable suit property, the wife has filed the Appeal bearing no. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 139/2022 on the ground that the learned Judge, Family court erred in arriving at the conclusion that the repayment of the joint loan for the car was proved to be done by the husband. She reiterated that she contributed in buying the car and it was she who had arranged money by selling her jewellery and borrowing money from her maternal family. It was submitted that the husband was not working in the year 2016 and 2017, hence, it was she who had repaid the loan qua the moveable suit property.
8. Submissions heard.
9. This Court has gone through the testimony of witnesses recorded before the learned Family Court, where the husband had examined himself as PW-1 and in his affidavit in examination-in-chief, he furnished the statement of accounts pertaining to bank account No.31490258303 and in the car loan account No.35367556461.
10. Relevantly, as per the joint Car Loan account bearing No. 35367556461 the loan was taken by both the parties for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-, towards which Monthly EMI in the sum of Rs.5,300 was deducted from the account of husband. Besides, payment of processing fee charges of loan to the tune of Rs.1,664/- on 30.11.2015 and part payments of Rs.50,000 on 04.05.2017; Rs.50,000/- on 09.06.2017 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.07.2017 was also made from his account.
11. The wife examined herself as DW-1 and proved the Registration Certificate in respect of the suit vehicle in her name. Even though wife has pleaded that she had given cash amounts to her husband by selling her bangles or by borrowing money from her sister-in-law, yet she could not bring any document on record to show or to prove if she had made any payments towards purchase of the vehicle. Accordingly, the learned Family Court has rightly held that the husband had purchased the car for his wife out of love and affection, though the Registration Certificate was got issued in the name of appellant/wife. The Respondent/husband has successfully proved that the payment for purchase of the Car was made by him.
12. In our view, the respondent/ husband having made the payments, though having sought Declaration that the car belongs to him, but such Declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is not tenable. The respondent husband is not entitled to the Declaration as sought by him. However, we direct that the respondent/husband is entitled to recover Rs. 3,20,000/- which he had paid as consideration amount for purchase of Car in the name of the appellant/wife. He is also entitled to interest @6% on this amount from the date of institution of the Suit till the date of payment.
13. The requisite Court fee on the amount be paid by the respondent, with this modification.
14. With above observations, the present appeal is hereby disposed of along with pending applications, if any.
15. In the circumstances, no order is made as to Costs.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 04, 2023
rk/r

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 139/2022 Page 6 of 6