Kannaiah Naidu vs Kamsala Ammal | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Overview

• Plaintiff and first defendant are husband and wife, married in 1965, and living in Neyveli
• The plaintiff moved to Saudi Arabia for work, whereas the 1st defendant continued to live with her children, and she was entrusted with the plaintiff's funds, which had swollen to huge proportions.
• Earlier in 2002, Kannaian Naidu filed a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, alleging that his wife had attempted to usurp properties purchased on his behalf by the first respondent.
• He also contended that the wife had sought assistance from another man to alienate the property and accused her of leading a wayward life.

Issue raised

• Would the wife's contribution to acquiring family assets through her domestic labor, home, and family care, and taking care of the children be considered when determining property rights?

Arguments Advanced by the Plaintiff

• Advocate Mr. S. Parthasarath represented the plaintiff in the present case.
• The counsel submitted that the Trial Court appreciated the contentions on behalf of the plaintiff, thereby decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff concerning Items Nos.1 to 5 of the scheduled mentioned properties.
• The counsel urged that the defendant acquire title to the suit properties as an ostensible owner. As a result, Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act does not apply in this case.
• It was further submitted that the claim that the plaintiff purchased these properties in the name of the 1st defendant as a means of compensation for the sale of her ancestral properties, which was used to cover the plaintiff's travel and visa expenses required for his employment abroad, was completely wrong.
• According to counsel, the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree should be set aside to the extent of declaring that Item No.3 of the schedule belongs to the first defendant.
• Reliance was placed on various cases, including Nand Kishore Mehra vs. Sushila Mehra [1989 (2) SCC 95], Vathsala Manickavasagam vs. N. Ganesan and another [(2013) (9) SCC 152], Union of India vs. Moksh Builders [AIR 1977 SC 409], to substantiate the counsel's contentions.

Arguments Advanced by the Respondent

• Advocate Mrs.Anusha represented the defendants in the case.
• The counsel first contended that the Trial Court had made a huge mistake while decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
• It was submitted that the said properties were purchased in the name of the 1st defendant for her benefit since the 1st defendant sold her ancestral property.
• It was put forth that the 1st defendant was not an ostensible owner holding the property in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the plaintiff.

Judgement Analysis

• The Madras High Court partly allowed the appeal, and the first appellate Court's judgment and decree were modified.
• The Court ruled that the wife had also contributed indirectly to acquiring the properties, and the Court held that she was entitled to a share in them. 
• In this case, even though the properties were purchased with the husband's money, saving for them would not have been possible without the contribution of the wife.
• Judges are not prohibited by law from acknowledging the role played by a wife in assisting her spouse with property acquisition. According to the Court, if assets are acquired through the joint contribution (directly or indirectly) of both spouses for the welfare of the family, both spouses are entitled to an equal share.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court, in this judgment, reiterated invaluable views regarding the role of a common housewife along with various legal principles. It was held that even though the wife had not contributed equally or directly, she had played an instrumental role in the husband's gainful employment by managing household chores and taking care of the family for more than a decade. The bench noted that in the generality of marriages, the wife bears and rears children and minds the home. She thereby frees her husband from his economic activities. As she facilitates her husband's ability to fulfill his duties, it is only fair that she receives a portion of the benefits.