Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that the property purchased by a Hindu husband in the name of his spouse, who is a homemaker and does not have an independent source of income, will be the property of the family. 

The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal reasoned, "...because in common course of natural events, Hindu husband purchases a property in the name of his wife, who is a homemaker and does not have any source of income for the benefit of the family".

The ruling came in an appeal filed by a son seeking his share in a property purchased by his father. He claimed that since the property in question had been purchased by his father in the name of his mother, therefore, the property was a joint family property.

He stated that he had constructed on the plot and that the entire family had been operating a business there and when he sought an injunction to prevent his family from transferring the property by filing an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, on a written statement by the respondent-family members claiming the property was gifted by his father to his mother, the court below rejected his plea. Consequently, he challenged the order of the court below before the high court. 

The son's counsel argued before the court that since the mother was a homemaker, therefore, the property purchased by the father in her name, would be a joint family property and not an individual property belonging to the mother. He referred to the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of the high court in the case of Kuldeep Sharma and others vs Satyendra Kumar Sharma and others (2001) where it was held that "if Hindu husband purchases a property in the name of his wife, who is homemaker then it is to be presumed that it is a benami transaction unless otherwise shown to be purchased by the wife from her source of income".

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent-family members which included the mother, referred to the case of Manohar Lal Sharma and others vs Pyare Lal and others (1974) where the high court had observed that "there is no presumption that a Hindu joint family owns the joint properties unless it is established that it had sufficient nucleus to acquire that property".

He also referred to the Apex Court's judgment in Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Thr. Lrs) vs Purushottam (2020) where it was held that unless the material is produced to show that payment was made to purchase the property out of the fund of HUF, the property cannot be said to belong to HUF.

The single judge bench, while holding the injunction application filed by the son maintainable, also held that Proviso (iii) of Section 2(9)(b) of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 prescribes that if the husband purchases the property in the name of his wife or children, the same will not be said to be Benami property but will be deemed to be purchased by the husband out of his source.

Further, court observed that "the high court under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act may presume the existence of fact that the property purchased by Hindu husband in the name of his spouse, who is homemaker and does not have independent source of income, will be the property of family".

Therefore, while holding that prima facie the property in question was a joint Hindu family property, court opined that protection of property from transferring to a third party was necessary.

Accordingly, the high court set aside the order of the court below and allowed the injunction application filed by the son. Moreover, emphasising that the dispute was between the real brothers and it was still pending, it directed the court below to decide the same expeditiously.

Case Title: Saurabh Gupta v. Smt. Archna Gupta And 2 Others