Person Merely Handing Over Sale Consideration To Vendor Can’t Claim Right On Immovable Property There Should Be Evidence To Show His Contribution: Karnataka Hc

The Karnataka High Court has said that mere handing over of sale consideration by a person to the vendor, at the time of execution of the sale deed, will not in itself create such persons’ right in the property.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed a petition filed by one KS Rama Rao questioning the concurrent judgments of the court wherein his suit seeking relief of declaration that he has half share in the properties and for partition and separate possession was dismissed.

The plaintiff claimed that he and his elder brother Mr K.S. Narasimaiah migrated to Magadi, and started their own hotel business and out of the income generated they got suit property registered in the name of Narasimaiah’s wife namely Rangamma. Plaintiff specifically contended that the property purchased in the name of his sister-in-law is in fact joint property purchased by both the brothers and claimed that he is entitled to have half share in the suit scheduled property.

The bench said there is absolutely no evidence left by the plaintiff to prove his arguments.

It also rejected the contention of the plaintiff that the endorsement made on the sale deed indicated he had made sale consideration for the suit property. It said that the endorsement only indicated that the money that was paid by Rangamma was handed over by the plaintiff to the vendor. The endorsement nowhere indicates that sale consideration was equally contributed by the plaintiff.

If really all the suit schedule properties were purchased through joint labour, then it was quite unnatural for an elder brother to purchase the property in the name of his wife. Obviously, if there was an equal contribution, the plaintiff would have never agreed to purchase the property in the name of his sister-in-law. Therefore, the theory that the plaintiff has equally contributed by parting sale consideration appears to be unnatural and both Courts have not accepted this contention, Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal