No Presumption of Joint Property Between Spouses Without Evidence, Holds Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has set aside a decree of partition and injunction granted in favour of a wife, holding that she failed to establish any legal or evidentiary basis to claim joint ownership over a residential property that stood exclusively in the name of her husband, and that a gift deed executed by the husband in favour of his son could not be invalidated merely on allegations of marital discord.

Justice B R Madhusudhan Rao allowed an appeal filed by Tirunagari Venkateshwarlu and another, overturning the judgment of the II Additional District Judge, which had declared a registered gift settlement deed as null and void, granted the plaintiff a half share in the suit schedule property, and restrained the defendants from alienating the property.

The dispute arose from a suit filed in 2013 by Rajput Vijaya Bai, wife of appellant No.1, seeking declaration, partition, separate possession, and perpetual injunction in respect of a house property situated at Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

The suit property consisted of a three-storeyed residential building constructed on a plot measuring 355 square yards. The plaintiff claimed that the property had been jointly purchased and constructed using joint funds during the subsistence of marriage and that she was entitled to an equal share.

The plaintiff alleged that she and her husband were both government employees and had jointly contributed to the purchase and construction of the house. She further alleged that after her retirement, she was ill-treated, and that her husband had developed an illicit relationship with her younger sister, through whom he had children, including defendant No.2, in whose favour the disputed gift settlement deed dated 17.12.2012 was executed.

The plaintiff claimed that the gift deed was executed to defeat her lawful share and sought its cancellation.

The defendants denied all material allegations and asserted that the suit schedule property was the self-acquired property of appellant No.1. They relied upon a registered sale deed dated 16.10.1978, which stood exclusively in the name of appellant No.1, and contended that the entire sale consideration was paid by him.

They further submitted that all construction permissions, housing loans, and repayments were in his name, and that the plaintiff had failed to produce any document evidencing her contribution towards the acquisition or construction of the property.

The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, holding that she was entitled to half share in the property and that the gift deed executed in favour of defendant No.2 was not binding on her. The court also granted a permanent injunction restraining alienation of the property to the extent of the plaintiff’s alleged share.

Aggrieved by this decision, the defendants preferred the present appeal.

In appeal, the High Court examined the oral and documentary evidence in detail. The Court noted that the registered sale deed for the suit schedule property stood solely in the name of appellant No.1 and did not contain any recital indicating contribution by the plaintiff.

The Court further noted that both the plaintiff and her GPA holder daughter admitted during cross-examination that no documentary proof was available to substantiate the claim that the plaintiff had contributed financially to the purchase of the property.

The Court also took note of admissions made by the plaintiff that she had not obtained any permission from her department to invest in the property, despite being a government employee governed by service conduct rules. It was further noted that the plaintiff had not reflected any such investment in her income tax returns.

It was observed that mere existence of a marital relationship or joint residence does not raise a presumption of joint ownership over immovable property.

On the issue of construction, the Court found that permissions for construction were obtained solely by appellant No.1 and that housing loans sanctioned for repairs were also in his name and stood fully repaid. The Court noted that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to show that construction expenses were met from joint funds.

The High Court also rejected the trial court’s finding that the gift deed was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.

The Court observed that the gift settlement deed was executed on 17.12.2012, whereas the suit was instituted only in January 2013, after the conclusion of proceedings before the Human Rights Commission. It held that the doctrine of lis pendens could not apply to a transaction that predated the filing of the suit.

Court further observed that the trial court had erred in shifting the burden of proof onto the defendants without the plaintiff first discharging her initial burden under Section 101 of the Evidence Act. It was reiterated that in civil cases, a party asserting joint ownership must establish the same through cogent evidence and cannot rely on conjectures or perceived improbabilities.

The Court found that the trial court’s reasoning that a single income would have been insufficient to maintain the family and construct the property was speculative and contrary to the evidence on record, particularly when all concerned parties were government employees.

Concluding that the findings of the trial court were perverse and unsupported by evidence, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2019, and dismissed the suit in its entirety.

All interim orders were vacated.

Case Title: Tirunagari Venkateshwarlu and Another v Rajput Vijaya Bai (since deceased) and Others

Bench: Justice B R Madhusudhan Rao

Date of Judgment: 30.01.2026