A property is in the joint name of a husband and wife. But only one of the two has directly or indirectly supplied funds for its purchase? In case of a marital discord, who can claim ownership of it?The Kerala High Court has declared a house registered in a husband and wife’s joint names to be the wife’s exclusive property after finding that her father had funded the entire purchase. The court directed the husband to vacate the property within three months.The dispute involved a couple who got married in 2012. The woman maintained that her father had financially supported the couple and bought a house in the names of both his daughter and son-in-law.After the wedding, the woman accompanied her husband abroad, where they lived for some time before eventually returning to India.As the relationship between the couple deteriorated, the woman sought the return of her gold ornaments and asserted that the house belonged solely to her because her father had financed its purchase.Also Read | Homebuyers paid Rs 2.06 crore but got no flat, builder said payments meant accepting delay; Bombay HC orders interest payout from 2017 saying RERA allows for unconditional right to monthly interest
What the case is about
The married couple’s dispute was related to a seven-cent plot with a residential building in Manjeri, Malappuram district. The property was purchased in 2015, and registered in both their names.The woman told the court that her father had paid Rs 30 lakh to purchase the house for her future security. Although the property was registered jointly, she maintained that her husband had contributed nothing towards the purchase and therefore had no independent entitlement to half of it.The Malappuram Family Court examined the evidence and accepted that the woman’s father had funded the purchase. However, it did not grant her exclusive ownership. Instead, it directed her husband to pay her Rs 15 lakh, which is the value of his half share.The husband challenged the decision, maintaining that he had bought the property using his own money. The woman also appealed, seeking a declaration of her exclusive ownership and an order requiring him to vacate the house.Also Read | Man sold his house and bought a Rs 1.10 crore flat jointly with wife; income tax department denies Rs 55.48 lakh capital gains exemption for half the amount, but ITAT Mumbai gives full relief
Why did the court rule in the wife’s favour?
The woman’s father testified that he had raised funds through a loan. His bank statement showed a credit of Rs 25 lakh followed by a debit of the same amount on November 9, the date of the sale deed.The husband maintained that he had used his own money to purchase the property. However, he failed to present evidence explaining where the funds for the sale consideration had come from.When questioned on this during cross-examination, the husband acknowledged that he had not withdrawn the money from any bank account. Instead, he claimed that his brother-in-law, who was working abroad with him, had given him the funds.But the court noted tht he did not examine his brother-in-law or produce documents. The court noted that he had failed to establish that he paid any part of the consideration.It concluded that “the entire sale consideration was paid by the father of the petitioner.”Also Read | Man invested Rs 10 lakh, which tax department treated as unexplained; he first cited cash loan, then bank withdrawals as source, ITAT Nagpur deletes addition and Rs 2.11 lakh penaltyThe court also considered Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, which deals with the respective interests of people in property purchased using their separate funds. It found that the money had been provided by the woman’s father for her benefit and that the husband had not established a contribution of his own.It held that the appropriate relief was “declaring the exclusive ownership of the property upon the petitioner, while incidentally permitting her to obtain vacant possession thereof.”Asha Kiran Sharma, Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva, told ET that the Kerala High Court focused on who had actually financed the purchase rather than relying solely on the names recorded on the property’s title deed.In this case, the wife’s father established that he had paid for the house using funds raised through a bank loan.Sharma explained that Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that, when two or more people jointly purchase a property and there is no agreement to the contrary, their respective shares are generally determined by the amounts they contributed towards the purchase.Since the husband had not contributed any money, his name on the deed did not establish an actual financial interest in the property. The Kerala High Court therefore recognised the wife as the sole owner and directed her husband to vacate the house within three months.In effect, the wife’s claim succeeded because her father’s bank records provided evidence of the source of the purchase money.Sharma said that when parents provide money towards a property, the arrangement should be documented clearly as either a gift or a loan. Where co-owners contribute different amounts, the ownership proportions should also be specified in the title deed or a separate written declaration. This can help avoid disputes that may arise when a property is registered jointly but the financial arrangement rests on an informal, undocumented understanding.Also Read | Tenant claimed landlords withheld Rs 10 lakh security deposit and refused to vacate shop; Delhi High Court rules against him, orders payout for unauthorised stay
