Business profits do not establish co-ownership without proof of a proprietary share in the business.

The respondent-wife held a registered Sale Deed dated 24 January 2006 for the suit property.

She said she had permitted the appellant-husband to occupy it, but sought possession after he failed to vacate following termination of that permission by legal notice.

The appellant claimed the property was purchased from profits of an unregistered partnership business, M/s Nagpal’s, in which he had an interest.

The trial court decreed possession, mesne profits of ₹15,000 per month, and permanent injunction. The appellant appealed under Section 96 CPC.

The judgment refers to different dates for the impugned decree: 21 September 2023 in its opening paragraph and 19 January 2024 in the discussion of the trial court’s decision.

Whether the appellant established a proprietary share in the suit property sufficient to defeat the respondent’s claim for possession, including whether the suit was barred by Section 69 of the Partnership Act.

Whether the respondent was entitled to mesne profits of ₹15,000 per month for the appellant’s continued occupation after termination of permission.

Whether the permanent injunction restraining the appellant from creating third-party rights was justified.

Whether a challenge to the dismissal of the review petition could be pursued in an appeal under Section 96 CPC.

The appeal was considered under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; the appellant’s objection to the suit relied on Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

The court applied the principle that a claim of co-ownership based on partnership funds requires proof of the alleged partnership or of the claimant’s proprietary share; the asserted source of purchase funds or contribution of business expertise, without such proof, does not itself establish co-ownership.

It also held that a spouse’s relationship to the owner does not confer a continuing right to occupy the property after permissive occupation is terminated, and that continued occupation thereafter may attract mesne profits.

The court cited no precedent or additional statutory provision in stating these principles.

The Sale Deed was solely in the respondent’s name, while the appellant produced no documentary evidence establishing either the alleged partnership with the respondent or his share in the business or its funds. The documentary material instead described the respondent as the sole proprietor; the court also found the nephew’s supporting testimony interested and unsupported.

Accordingly, even if business funds were used to purchase the property, that alone did not establish the appellant’s co-ownership, and the Section 69 objection could not succeed on the unproved partnership case.

The respondent had terminated the appellant’s permissive occupation by legal notice; his status as her husband did not entitle him to remain against her wishes. The trial court’s assessment of ₹15,000 per month was supported by the appellant’s admission that the adjoining property fetched that rent.

The injunction followed from the finding that the respondent was the exclusive owner.

The court declined to address the review challenge, holding that dismissal of a review petition was not appealable under Section 96 CPC.