The Allahabad High Court confirmed that if a Hindu husband buys property in his homemaker wife’s name and she doesn’t have her own income, it’s assumed to be family property. This decision came from an appeal in the Lucknow Bench of the Court. The person appealing had asked for an injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), but the Civil Judge denied it.
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed, “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.”
Advocate Pritish Kumar represented the appellant, while Advocate Ankit Srivastava represented the respondents. The main issue was a civil suit filed by the appellant husband against the respondents, including his wife and others. He sought to declare his co-ownership of a 1/4th share in the disputed property, arguing it was joint family property acquired by his father. He emphasized his wife’s status as a homemaker without independent financial means. The disputed property was bought by the appellant’s father through a sale deed. The appellant himself did construction work on it, later using it for a family business. After filing the lawsuit, he sought an interim injunction to stop the respondents from selling the property, but the lower court rejected it. So, he appealed to the High Court for resolution.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “… here the appellant is claiming the declaration of only 1⁄4th share in the property in dispute on the ground that the property belongs to a joint Hindu family and the property was purchased during lifetime of father of the appellant in the name of respondent no.1, who was homemaker.”
The Court held that in such case prima facie the property is joint Hindu family property and protection of property from transferring to a third party is necessary.
“… consequently this Court finds that the Court below, while passing the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 has not applied his mind despite being a prima facie case, and 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”, it added.
The Court issued an injunction, prohibiting the respondents from transferring the contested property while the case remained unresolved.
Consequently, the High Court granted the appeal and annulled the challenged ruling.
