- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA RFA NO. 100017 OF 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 OF 2021 (PA/DE/IN) BETWEEN: SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O CHANNABASANAGOUDA HARTI AGED 49 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE R/O MICHIGAN COMPOUND, SAPTAPUR DIST . DHARWAD - 580 008 … APPELLANT [COMMON IN BOTH APPEALS] (BY SRI.SRINAND A. PUCHCHAPURE, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. MANJULA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR HARTI AGED 50 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE R/O PLOT NO.2, AISHWARYA LAYOUT BEHIND SARVAMANGALA HOSPITAL SAPTAPUR, DIST - DHARWAD 2. KUMAR AKHILESH S/O CHANDRASHEKAR HARTI AGED 21 YEARS, OCC STUDENT R/O PLOT NO.2, AISHWARYA LAYOUT BEHIND SARVAMANGALA HOSPITAL SAPTAPUR DIST - DHARWAD - 580 008 … RESPONDENTS [COMMON IN BOTH APPEALS] (BY SRI.SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADV.) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.12.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.41/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ® Digitally signed by MALA K N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 DHARWAD, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION IN THE SUIT AND DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN THE COUNTER- CLAIM. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA CAV COMMON JUDGMENT (PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) In these appeals, the plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2020 passed in O.S.No.41/2015 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM., Dharwad (‘the Trial Court’, for short). 2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 3. The suit schedule properties consist of house property bearing Sy.No.59K/1/B(59PÀ/1§), plot No.3 measuring 3 guntas 3 annas situated at Michigan - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 Compound, Saptapur, Dharwad ('item No.1 of suit property' for short) called as 'Hostel Building' and a house property bearing Sy.No.97/1K(97/1PÀ), plot No.2 measuring 3 guntas 6 Annas situated at Aishwarya Layout, Behind Sarvamangala Hospital, Saptapur, Dharwad ('item No.2 of suit property' for short) called as 'residential house'. 4. Brief facts of the case are, both plaintiff and defendant No.1 while working as Research Associates at University of Agricultural Science, Dharwad fell in love and got married on 26.07.1996 at Someshwar Temple located at Hosakatti village of Dharwad Taluk. Their marriage was registered under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Dharwad. At the time of marriage, both were drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- each. 4.1. After marriage, couple shifted to Hebballi Farm residence and they lived together happily. They resided together at Hebballi Farm for about one year, thereafter - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 shifted to rented house at Shrinagar and stayed upto 1999. As a result of their wedlock, defendant No.2 was born on 10.07.1999. 4.2. While the couple were working together, out of their salary savings and by raising loan, they jointly purchased plot in item No.1 of suit property on 30.12.2002. The plaintiff paid stamp duty, registration charges for purchase of plot. They also put up a Hostel building for letting out rooms to the students. They also borrowed joint loan of Rs.14 lakhs from the Bank of India, Dharwad Branch for construction purpose. For construction of Hostel building, the plaintiff has borne cost of construction materials, consultation fee paid to the Engineer, building permission expenses, building tax, electricity connection, etc. After completion of the building, the rooms were let out to the students and they were realizing the rental income, used to discharge the bank loan and it being jointly enjoyed w.e.f. 01.10.2010. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 4.3. Again on 13.07.2011, the couple have purchased plot in item No.2 of suit property for construction of the residential house. Plaintiff has paid Rs.2 lakhs to defendant No.1 through his bank account for purchase of the plot. The construction of house was completed by 15.12.2013. The plaintiff spent money towards stamp duty, registration charges of plot, also spent money towards construction materials, engineer's consultation fee, building permission expenses, tax, electricity connection for the house. The sale deeds pertain to item Nos.1 and 2 were pledged to the Bank as security to loan. 4.4. The plaintiff was working as Commercial Tax Inspector, being a Government servant, he was not getting permission for construction immediately. Defendant No.1 being University employee did not require any permission from the Government. Hence, both the plots were purchased and construction was also made in her name. Both the properties were purchased, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 building was constructed jointly and therefore, couple is having equal share in it. 4.5. Differences arose between the couple in the year 2006 and it was persisted and continued. Both felt that it is not possible for them to lead marital life together. On 18.04.2014, conciliation process was held in presence of elders of both families. They advised the couple to live separately for a period of one month. In persuasion of such conciliation, the plaintiff started living in one of the rooms at Hostel building. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were residing in the residential house. 4.6. Defendant No.1 got drafted mutual consent divorce petition to be filed before the Family Court. Simultaneously, an agreement was also drafted and both were agreed to abide by the said terms after getting the divorce. As per the said agreement, the plaintiff is required to vacate the residential house and own Hostel building and defendants to own residential house. In compliance of said terms, he had vacated the house and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 shifted to Hostel building. The defendants continued to reside in the residential building. 4.7. Thereafter, defendant No.1 refused to abide by the terms of said agreement and began to assert her exclusive right over both items. Taking advantage of both items standing in her name, plaintiff started denying right, title and ownership of the plaintiff over both items. She started harassing the plaintiff, threatening that he will be thrown out of the Hostel building and to this extent, she has sent e-mails as well as messages. Defendant No.1 in order to harass the plaintiff filed a written request to HESCOM for disconnection of the electricity supply to Hostel building. In this connection, on 14.12.2014 Police complaint was filed to Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad and it was registered in Crime No.301/2014. 4.8. As the suit properties are purchased out of joint earning and loan, both plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the joint owners and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 to half share in the suit properties. As the defendant No.1 denied to effect partition, the plaintiff was constrained to file the instant suit seeking partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit properties. 5. Defendant No.1 has opposed the suit by filing written statement, admitting the relationship between them, their employment and begetting son/defendant No.2. It is her case that in October 1997, she secured a permanent government job and shifted to a rental house at Srinagar, Dharwad. During her pregnancy, the plaintiff started harassing her, due to which she had to return back to her parental house and stayed between 1999 to 2014. 5.1. At the time of marriage, her father gifted 4 acres of land to her. The plaintiff enjoyed the said land till he got the job as Commercial Tax Inspector in the year 1998. She admitted purchase of item No.1 on 02.01.2003, item No.2 on 13.07.2011 and also construction of the Hostel building and thereafter - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 residential house. She denied any financial contribution by the plaintiff in purchase of both plots and towards construction of the Hostel building and residential house. It is her specific case that she has purchased both suit properties out of her salary income and also by raising loan. By borrowing loan from the Bank, firstly she has put up construction of Hostel building and residential house later. She was helped by her parents and she had taken financial help from the relatives for construction. She also denied plaintiff contributing any money by raising loan either from GPF or KGID at any point of time. 5.2. The plaintiff though working as Commercial Tax Inspector at Navanagar, Hubli, he never bothered to look after his wife and son, he used to come home late, quarrel with her and subjected them to cruelty. The relationship between the husband and wife from the beginning of the marriage was not cordial, plaintiff had never given any financial assurance or assistance to her. She was never under the control of the plaintiff or his financial position. In order to cheat her, plaintiff has - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 invented false grounds that the suit properties are purchased and buildings were constructed from out of the joint earning, savings and by raising loans. The suit properties are not the joint properties of plaintiff and defendant No.1, he has no right, title or interest over the suit properties, it is her self-acquired properties. 5.3. The defendant No.1 has also filed counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC, seeking declaration of title over the suit properties. 6. The Trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether Plaintiff proves that suit schedule properties are purchased by Plaintiff and D-1 jointly out of their income? 2. Whether Plaintiff proves that he is entitled for half share in the suit property? 3. Whether D-1 proves that she is the absolute owner of suit schedule property as stated in her counter claim acquired out of her own earnings? 4. Whether the counter-claimant is entitled for the reliefs sought? 5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed? 6. What Decree or Order? - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 7. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined two witnesses as PWs-1 and 2 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. On behalf of the defendants, defendant Nos.1 was examined as DW-1 and Exs.D1 to D27 were marked. The Trial Court answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 5 in the negative and issue Nos.3 and 4 in the affirmative. While answering issue No.6 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and decreed the counter claim filed by defendant No.1 declaring that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit properties and directed the plaintiff to hand over possession of the hostel building in favour of defendant No.1 within two months from the date of judgment. 8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has filed R.F.A.No.100017/2021 and challenging the decree of counter claim, he has also filed R.F.A.No.100013/2021 on various grounds. 9. We have heard the arguments of Sri.Srinand A.Pachchapure, learned counsel for the plaintiff and - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 Sri.Shivakumar S.Badavadagi, learned counsel for the defendants. 10. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that, marriage between plaintiff and defendant No.1 was a love marriage. They got married on 26.07.1996. On 10.07.1999, defendant No.2 was born to their marital life. On 30.12.2002, open plot in item No.1 and on 13.07.2011, open plot in item No.2 was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of defendant No.1. In item No.1, they have constructed a Hostel building in the year 2010 and let it out to the students for the purpose of earning income. Accordingly loan was borrowed in the name of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff invested construction cost from out of his personal savings. Rental income being utilized for discharge of loan borrowed. The construction cost of residential house was borne by the plaintiff and joint loan was also borrowed. The plaintiff is also discharging the joint loan and also from Hostel income. The loan borrowed by both plaintiff and defendant No.1 was discharged out of joint - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 savings, earnings, thereby both plaintiff and defendant No.1 are having joint right, title and ownership over the suit properties and they are entitled to equal share in the suit properties. 10.1. It is further contended that the construction of house building was completed on 15.12.2013. In the year 2014, a dispute arose between the couple as defendant No.1 started doubting the character of the plaintiff, she started making false allegation that, he is having illicit relationship with other ladies. On 18.04.2014, conciliation was held before the elders, it was resolved to separate the couple and advised them to obtain divorce by mutual consent. Joint petition was also drafted and mutually an agreement was drafted on 2.6.2014 wherein the house property was allotted to defendant No.1 and Hostel building was allotted to plaintiff. Accordingly, it was agreed to go for mutual consent divorce and sharing of the properties, but the defendant No.1 went back from her promise and acted against the terms of agreement and the plaintiff was evicted from the residential house. Plaintiff started - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 residing in one of the rooms at Hostel building. The joint petition was not filed. Thereafter the plaintiff himself filed the petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which came to be decreed granting decree of divorce. Sufficient evidence is placed on record to show that the plaintiff has invested money towards purchase of open plots, construction of the Hostel building and residential house. Inspite of it, the defendant No.1 was not willing to part with the properties, which forced the plaintiff to come before the court. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for defendants has contended that, plaintiff never parted with any money for purchase of the plots or construction. Even though joint loan of Rs.14 lakhs was borrowed from Bank of India, not a single pie was discharged by the plaintiff. Even after construction of the Hostel building, it is the plaintiff, who is enjoying the rental income and loan has been discharged by defendant No.1 out of rental income only. Since the plaintiff subjected defendant No.1 to cruelty, - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 differences arose between the couple, which ended in decree of divorce. 11.1. It is further contended that there was no consensus between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to draft a joint petition for mutual divorce nor any agreement came to be drafted. The said drafts are only drafts, the defendants are not party to it and defendant No.1 never agreed to part with the Hostel building in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff himself was residing in one of the rooms at Hostel building. It is the defendant No.1, who purchased the plot and put up Hostel and house buildings out of her savings, her earnings, raising loan, taking financial assistance from her parents and it is her self-acquired property. In the course of cross- examination, plaintiff himself admitted that he has not paid any money towards bank loan. The documents produced by the plaintiff pertain to the income of the Hostel building. No material is placed on record to show that he has borrowed any loan from the KGID or GPF in the year 2014 for construction purpose. No evidence is - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 made available to establish joint discharge of loan at any point of time. Hence, defendant No.1 is entitled for decree of counter claim and the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and perused the records. 13. The points that arise for our consideration are: (i) Whether the suit item Nos.1 and 2 are the joint acquisition of plaintiff and defendant No.1? (ii) Whether the Hostel building and residential house were constructed by their joint investment? (iii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is erroneous and calls for our interference? Reg. Point No.(i): - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 14. There is no dispute as to the relationship between the parties and that the suit item Nos.1 and 2 are acquired in the name of defendant No.1. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 both were employed, earning members in the family and they were drawing independent salary. Item No.1 was acquired on 30.12.2002 for a consideration of Rs.4,75,000/-. Item No.2 was acquired on 13.07.2011 for a consideration of Rs.10,20,000/-. 15. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he has contributed for purchase of item Nos.1 and 2 from out of his salary. In this regard, on perusal of Exs.P1 and P2, there is no reference of the plaintiff either as a witness or his role as husband of defendant No.1. In acquiring these two properties, documents are produced in the form of Bank Pass Books as per Exs.P3 and P4 and also loan borrowed from the KGID and GPF as per Ex.P5 and the Bank Statement as per Exs.P6, P7 and P8. None of these records did point out that either at the time of acquisition of item No.1 on 30.12.2002 or item No.2 on - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 13.07.2011, any reference of the plaintiff contributing any money towards sale consideration that was paid under these two documents. Though plaintiff claims that he being the Commercial Tax Inspector has contributed money for purchase of item Nos.1 and 2, as defendant No.1 is not required to take any prior permission from the department, but he is required to take prior permission from the Government for purchase of the property. For logical purpose, this may be a right contention raised by the plaintiff, but when the property was purchased in the name of his spouse, law has been settled by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments and it is relevant to refer to some of them. 16. In V.Tulasamma and Others -vs- Sesha Reddy (dead) by LRs.1, the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short) has interpreted that property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or 1 AIR 1977 SC 1944 - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 after the commencement of the Act, becomes her absolute property. 17. In K.V.Narayanswami Iyer -vs- K.V.Ramakrishna Iyer and Others2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere financial contribution by one spouse does not automatically confer joint ownership if the property is registered in the other spouse's name. Clear evidence of intent to create joint ownership is essential. 18. In Valliammal (dead) by LRs., -vs- Subramaniam and Others3 the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that the payment or contribution towards purchase of property does not establish ownership unless there is clear evidence of intent to share ownership between spouses. 19. In Saraswathi Ammal and Another -vs- Rajagopal Ammal4, the Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasized that property registered solely in one 2 AIR 1965 SC 289 3 (2004) 7 SCC 233 4 AIR 1953 SC 491 - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 spouse's name remains legally theirs unless compelling proof shows that it was intended as a joint acquisition. 20. It is relevant to refer to Section 14(1) of the Act. This Section states that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. It aims to remove the limitations on a women's property rights and confer absolute ownership. 21. Section 14(2) of the Act serves as an exception to Section 14(1) stating that any property acquired by a female Hindu through a gift, Will or any other instrument prescribing a restricted estate shall not be considered as her absolute property. 22. In this context, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgments clarified that if Section 14(1) of the Act is to apply, the woman must not only possess the property but must have acquired it through lawful means. Ultimately, it came to the conclusion that while financial contributions by both spouses are significant, - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 the legal ownership of property depends on various factors including the intent to create joint ownership and compliance with statutory provisions. 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that mere contributions without clear evidence of intent do not confer any joint ownership rights. Therefore, in the absence of strict proof of joint ownership intent, the property registered in the name of one spouse is presumed to be their separate property. The law of the land has been discussed above and we have to consider the intent of the parties with reference to the pleadings and the evidence on record. 24. The plaintiff has reiterated the fact of his contribution, as we referred to supra, the documents produced by him under Exs.P1 to P8 did not point out anything in support of him. In the course of cross- examination, it is elicited that marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was a love marriage, it was performed in a temple and for this reason, father of defendant No.1 gave her 4 acres of land and it being - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 cultivated by the plaintiff to generate income. As we see from the evidence, at the time of acquisition of item No.1 in the year 2002, as the salary of both plaintiff and defendant No.1 was meager, the income generated from agricultural land has also been utilized. 25. In order to consider the intention of the plaintiff to acquire suit item Nos.1 and 2 in the name of defendant No.1 for the reason that he was unable to get prior permission from the Government, in order to explain the difficulty for the plaintiff to get prior permission from the Government for acquisition of the property, there is no iota of evidence. Mere pleading and assumptions are made without any basis. The plaintiff has not placed any evidence for having applied for permission to acquire the properties and he has any other source of income to acquire or any delay in getting sanction. Thus, it is clear that, the conduct of the plaintiff in saying that the property was acquired in the name of defendant No.1 on the ground that she is not required any prior permission cannot be sustained. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 26. Defendant No.1 is an employee of the University which is also governed by the Conduct Rules and there is no evidence to the effect that she is not required to take prior permission from her department. Hence, we do not find any substance in the claim of the plaintiff that the acquisition in the name of defendant No.1 was on the ground of difficulty in getting prior permission from the Government. 27. As we discussed above, law laid down by the Apex Court that even if it is a joint acquisition, in view of Section 14(1) of the Act, item Nos.1 and 2 become the absolute property of defendant No.1. It is for the plaintiff to establish that the intent was to acquire the property jointly. It is interesting to note that for a period of one year, the couple lived happily. Thereafter differences arose between them and ultimately due to such differences, the plaintiff has filed the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking decree of divorce and same was allowed. This clearly goes to show that the relationship between the couple - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 some days after the marriage was not cordial and there is co-habitation issue between them. If such differences arose between both couple, whether the evidence of the plaintiff explains the intent of joint acquisition is to be assessed. 28. As we assessed the evidence on record, we do not find any reason, which will speak in support of the plaintiff that the acquisition of item Nos.1 and 2 was the joint acquisition of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and it was intended for the joint ownership. Hence, we answer point No.(i) in the negative. Reg. Point No.(ii): 29. Undisputedly, the hostel building was constructed for earning income, it was leased to students and income is being generated. The evidence on record clearly points out that the Bank loan was borrowed in the name of defendant No.1 for construction of hostel building. The plaintiff is the co-obligant to his wife. After construction of the hostel building, the building is being maintained by the plaintiff only. In the course of cross- - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 examination, plaintiff has admitted that he has not paid any money from his Bank account towards discharge of loan. The plaintiff has produced several challans for having paid money towards the loan which are found in Ex.P12. It is interesting to note that on 10.04.2012, 07.08.2012, 14.09.2012, 28.02.2013 and 14.04.2013, the plaintiff has paid loan amount to defendant No.1 in a sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs, Rs.1 lakh, Rs.6 lakhs, Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs respectively, but these are the amount not paid from the salary or bank account of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 asserted that these are the income generated as rent from the hostel building that has been paid to the Bank account. In view of the admission of the plaintiff that he has not paid any money from his Bank account, then whatever money paid by him under Ex.P12 is the income generated from the hostel building. 30. The plaintiff contends that he has spent huge money towards construction of the hostel building. He admits that he has a separate account for having purchased the construction materials. When the - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 construction of hostel building was started, the plaintiff has left the job in the University and he was a Commercial Tax Inspector at Dharwad. The plaintiff has got documents to show that he has borrowed money from his relatives and friends towards construction of the hostel building, but no evidence is available in his favour. The only document that would support the plaintiff is the loan sanctioned to him by the KGID and GPF, which is available in the form of Ex.P5. Ex.P5 is an HRMS generated document which explains that on 22.07.2013, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was sanctioned as loan from the G.P.F. and Rs.1,65,662/- was sanctioned loan on 20.09.2011 from the K.G.I.D. But there is no evidence on record that these amounts were utilized towards construction of the house. The plaintiff has produced the Bank statement as per Ex.P6 issued by the State Bank of India, Vidyanagar Branch to show that on 08.07.2011, he has transferred a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in the name of defendant No.1, again on 30.08.2011, he has transferred Rs.1 lakh in favour of defendant No.1. These are the relevant dates where no sale deeds nor any construction - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 of the house were taken place. Hence, it is for the plaintiff to explain, in what context, these transfers were effected by him. It could be appreciated that he was managing 4 acres of land given to defendant No.1 as a gift and he was generating the agricultural income. In that context, if these entries are appreciated, he might have paid agricultural proceeds in the form of cash. 31. As regards construction is concerned, the plaintiff has not placed any evidence to show that he has purchased construction materials, electrical connections, paid any money towards fees of the Engineer. Even the persons concerned are not examined. The only witness who is examined on behalf of the plaintiff is his friend, PW-2/Sri.Rajashekar Fakirappa Bhairappanavar, who speaks of acquisition of sites and construction of the building by the plaintiff. His cross-examination demonstrated that he is totally ignorant about the family affairs of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and his evidence will not throw any light whether the acquisition - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 and construction of the house building was for the joint ownership of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. 32. We have also carefully perused the evidence of the defendant No.1. Her evidence clearly points out that the marriage took place in the year 1996 and the plaintiff shifted to residential quarters of defendant No.1 and they led marital life till 1999 and defendant No.2 was born in their wedlock in the month of July 1999. She admits that the plaintiff is the co-obligant for purchase of the property and in the year 2010, the hostel building was completed and loan repayment was started. The plaintiff was repaying the loan from out of the rental income and he has not paid any money from out of his salary or from his account. She also deposed about the acquisition of item No.2 in the year 2003 by raising loan of Rs.25 lakhs from the University of Agriculture and in support of it, she has produced Ex.D13. In the year 2014, house construction was completed and the family dispute had arisen by that time. From 2015, the couple started living separately. During the course of cross- - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 examination, it has been attributed to her that the plaintiff has taken insurance policy and the maturity amount was utilized for construction of the house. But there is no evidence adduced in proof of it by the plaintiff. The cross-examination of the defendant did not demonstrate or was there any suggestion that the parties were intended to acquire the property in the name of defendant No.1 for their joint enjoyment. 33. As we notice from her evidence that Rs.25 lakhs was borrowed as a loan in the name of defendant No.1 for construction of hostel and the said amount was fully utilized for construction. Defendant No.1 had also got 4 acres of land from her father as a gift and it was being cultivated by the plaintiff generating additional income. In the month of January 1999, plaintiff being a Commercial Tax Inspector was earning salary of Rs.11,000/- and in the year 1998, defendant No.1 was promoted as a Professor and she was earning salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. She has given evidence that her brother has credited Rs.6 lakhs to her account and - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 Ex.P14 is the letter of Bank of India showing the sanction of loan of Rs.18 lakhs on 12.01.2009. 34. An interesting aspect is that in the year 2014, differences arose between husband and wife wherein the plaintiff is making allegation that his wife was ill-treating him and she was attributing him that he had illicit relationship with other ladies, which led to conciliation in the presence of family members, who advised them to live separately and accordingly the plaintiff left the house and started residing in the hostel building and defendant No.1 started residing in the house building. 35. It is not in dispute that M.C.No.11/2015 was filed by the plaintiff against defendant No.1 seeking decree of divorce and it has been allowed on 06.06.2017 and decree of divorce was granted. Even prior to filing of divorce petition, some quarrel took place between the couple, which led to filing of criminal case in C.C.No.481/2015 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Dharwad. - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 36. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that in the family negotiations, plaintiff and defendant No.1 have settled to obtain divorce by mutual consent and a petition for divorce by mutual consent was drafted and in this regard, there was an agreement entered into between them wherein it was agreed that the plaintiff to retain the hostel building and defendant No.1 to retain the house property. Accordingly, agreement was also drafted, but defendant No.1 went back from the terms. To explain this, plaintiff has produced Ex.P11/copy of the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also Divorce Contract. These are only the draft copies, neither the plaintiff nor defendant No.1 have signed on these two documents. We are failed to understand the legal sanctity of these two documents, which are marked in the evidence. There is no evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to show that such a document came into existence in the family conciliation, not a single family member has been examined before the Court to state that such conciliation had taken place - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Hence, no value can be attached to Ex.P11 and such contention taken by the plaintiff. 37. As we re-appreciate the evidence on record with reference to oral and documentary evidence, the plaintiff wants to put in evidence that he has spent money towards construction, but he has failed to produce any iota of evidence to show that he has spent money towards construction from his salary. He was a Commercial Tax Inspector and the tenor of argument goes to show that he was earning money in his department and those money in the form of cash was pumped into construction of the house. If the plaintiff has pumped in such illegal money, what was the necessity for defendant No.1 to raise loan from the Bank and it has been discharged legally out of her salary and also income generated in the hostel building. This clearly goes to show the intention of the parties that it is the defendant No.1, who acquired property and raised loan and constructed hostel and house building and the - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 income generated in the hostel building and from her salary, she has discharged the loan. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold by saying that his cash flown from his job as a Commercial Tax Inspector creating any legal right in his favour over the property. 38. As we discussed above, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court with reference to Section 14(1) of the Act that the property acquired in the name of female member of the family is her absolute property. In order to establish the joint ownership, the person, who pleads, has to place clear evidence to the level of satisfaction that the acquisition and construction of the house was with a clear intent of joint ownership between the couple. But we do not find any such evidence in support of the plaintiff. Hence, we are persuaded to hold that the construction of the hostel building and residential house was not by joint investment as contended by the plaintiff. Accordingly, we answer point No.(ii) in the negative. Reg: Point No.(iii): - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 39. We have carefully evaluated the pleadings of the parties, oral evidence of the plaintiff in the form of PWs-1 and 2, Exs.P1 to P15 and also the evidence of defendant No.1 in the form of DW-1 and Exs.D1 to D27. We have also carefully evaluated the judgment of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has given specific reason that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the acquisition of the site property in item Nos.1 and 2 was not out of the joint income of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, so also the construction of the house and the Trial Court has rightly considered the counter claim of the defendant No.1 in respect of the hostel building that acquisition and construction was out of her own earnings. 40. As we discussed above, while answering point Nos.(i) and (ii), the plaintiff has failed to prove that as consideration towards acquisition of item Nos.1 and 2 as plot and also construction of the building in both plots, one is hostel building and another is residential house. When a person is claiming declaration must stand on his own footing, he cannot take advantage of the weaknesses of the defendants. - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1898-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100013 of 2021 41. As we re-appreciated the evidence, we do not find any error or illegality committed by the Trial Court in holding that the suit item Nos.1 and 2 are the absolute property of defendant No.1 and there was no intent of joint ownership between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and decreed the counter claim. We do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Trial Court. We hold that both the appeals are devoid of merits. In the result, we pass the following; ORDER Both appeals are dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE Sd/- (T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE KNM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1