Property Purchased By Hindu Husband In Homemaker Wife's Name Is Family Property: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a property purchased by husband in the name of wife who is a homemaker and has no independent source of income is a family property. The Court held that it is common and natural in Hindu husbands to purchase properties in the name of their wives.

While dealing with son's claim for declaration of co-ownership of deceased father's property, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held,

“This 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, because in common course of natural event Hindu husband purchases a property in the name of his wife, who is homemaker and does not have any source of income for the benefit of family.”

The Court observed that unless it is otherwise proved that the property was purchased by the income earned by the wife, the property is deemed to have been purchased by the husband using his own income.

Factual Background

Appellant-son filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that he is the co-sharer of 1/4th part of the property purchased by his father. He contended that since the property was purchased by his deceased father, he was a co-sharer in the same along with his mother, the respondent-defendant. Since the property was purchased in the name of the mother, i.e., wife of the deceased father, appellant filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking an injunction against transfer of property to a third party.

In the written statement, the respondent-defendant pleaded that the property was gifted to her by her husband as she had no independent source of income. Accordingly, the application for interim injunction was rejected by the Trial Court.

Counsel for appellant argued that since his mother did not have any independent income, the property was purchased by his father in her name. However, that does not make it her private property. It was argued that the property purchased by the father was a joint family property and the appellant and other respondent had been together running business on the same.

In support of his contentions, counsel for appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kuldeep Sharma and others vs Satyendra Kumar Sharma and others wherein it was held that property purchased by Hindu husband in the name of homemaker wife is deemed to be a benami transaction unless it is shown that such property was purchased from her independent income.

Further relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dalpat Kumar and another vs Prahlad Singh and others and Smt. Ranibai alias Mannubai vs Smt. Kamla Devi and others, it was argued that there is a prima facie case for grant of injunction which has not been considered by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the order rejecting application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, counsel for respondent submitted that application for interim injunction was not maintainable as no permanent injunction was sought in the plaint. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Cotton Corporation of India Limited vs United Industrial Bank Limited and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in V.D. Tripathi and others vs Vijai Shanker Dwivedi and other.

Further, it was argued that there cannot be a presumption as to joint ownership of property by the joint family.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that absolute ownership of the gifted property can only be declared upon perusal of evidence.

The Court further pointed out that Proviso (iii) of Section 2(9)(b) of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 provides that property purchased by husband in the name of his wife or children cannot be said to be Benami property. Such property shall be deemed to be purchased by the husband out of his source.

The Court observed that the Apex Court in Smt. Ranibai alias Mannubai vs Smt. Kamla Devi and others has held that “even in the suit for declaration as an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. is maintainable for the protection of property, which is the subject matter of suit if the Court finds protection of the subject matter is necessary, and if protection is not granted, the same may result in irreparable loss to the complainant.”

Further placing reliance on Zenith Metaplast Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharastra and others, the Court observed that the Supreme Court has held that interim injunction is a temporary arrangement to preserve the status quo till the matter is decided finally and to prevent the matter from being infructuous or a fait accompali before the final hearing.

“It also further observed that the grant of a temporary injunction is governed by three basic principles, i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, which must be considered in a proper perspective in the facts and circumstances of the particular case.”

The Court held that the property purchased by a Hindu husband in the name of homemaker wife, without any independent income is deemed to be purchased from his personal income. Such property prima facie becomes the property of the joint Hindu family, the Court held.

The Court held that in such circumstances, it is necessary to protect the property from creation of third-party rights.

The Court held that “in such case protection is necessary against further transferring the property or changing the nature of same, if same is not protected, there are chances the property may be transferred or nature of property may be changed in that case even if the appellant's suit is decreed, then he will suffer irreparable loss and injury.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed granting injunction as pleaded by the appellant.

Case Title: Saurabh Gupta vs. Smt. Archna Gupta And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 105 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 321 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 105 

Click Here To Read/Download Order