HC declares woman sole owner of jointly registered house bought with father’s money
Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.The Kerala High Court has declared a woman the exclusive owner of a seven-cent property and residential building in Malappuram district after finding that the entire payment for its purchase had been provided by her father, though the property was registered jointly in the names of the woman and her husband.A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar held that the woman’s father had bought the property for her benefit and that the husband had failed to establish that he had contributed any amount towards its purchase. The court also directed the husband to vacate the property within three months.The judgement was delivered on September 26 in a matrimonial appeal arising from an order of the Family Court, Malappuram.The dispute concerned a seven-cent property in Manjeri Municipality, purchased in 2015 in the joint names of the woman, Raslin, and her husband, Kurudankandi Shamsheer. Raslin had claimed that her father had provided Rs 30 lakh for purchasing the property, which was registered jointly in their names to secure her future and for the welfare of the family.The Family Court had earlier held that the property had been purchased exclusively with money raised by Raslin’s father and directed the husband to pay Rs 15 lakh, representing the value of his half share. The High Court, however, went further and declared Raslin the exclusive owner of the property.The court noted that a bank statement produced by Raslin’s father showed that Rs 25 lakh had been debited from his account on the date of execution of the sale deed. The husband Shamsheer, meanwhile, claimed that he had purchased the property using his own funds. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that the money had not been withdrawn from his bank account and claimed that it had been given to him by his brother-in-law, who had worked with him in Saudi Arabia.The High Court noted that Shamsheer did not produce documents showing how the money had been brought to India. “Thus, he failed to prove the payment of any such amounts,” the court held.The Bench also noted that the original title deed was in the woman’s possession and that the husband had admitted that she had obtained the sale deed from the Sub-Registry.“The petitioner’s claim regarding the purchase of property for her with the funds provided by her father, but in the joint names in the best interests of the family, stands proved,” the court said.Court rejects husband's claim over joint registrationThe husband’s counsel argued that since the property had been registered jointly, the woman could not claim exclusive ownership and relied on Section 92 (exclusion of evidence of oral agreement) of the Indian Evidence Act.The High Court examined the issue in detail and referred to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which permits family courts to receive material that may assist them in effectively resolving a dispute, even if such material would otherwise be inadmissible under the Evidence Act.In the present case, the court found that the oral evidence of the woman and her father was substantially corroborated by the bank records, and concluded that “the entire sale consideration was paid by the father of the petitioner.”The court further observed that the purpose behind the purchase was the welfare of the daughter and that this was established through the father’s evidence.Court orders husband to vacateThe woman had originally sought Rs 15 lakh towards the value of her husband’s alleged half share in the property. During the appeal, she also sought a declaration of exclusive ownership and an order directing him to vacate.The husband opposed the request, arguing that the amendment was belated.The High Court held that, in family disputes, the role of the court is different from that in ordinary civil litigation and that family courts are empowered to adopt procedures aimed at arriving at the truth.The Bench found that the woman’s original pleadings had sufficiently disclosed the nature of her claim that her father had paid the entire amount for the property and that the husband had not contributed anything.“Having been satisfied that the property was purchased for the petitioner, we do not find any impediment in declaring the petitioner's exclusive title in respect of the said property, even without allowing the application for amendment.”The court further held that the husband could not claim an independent right over the property once the woman’s exclusive title had been established.“In the interests of justice, the relief in the present case has to be moulded, declaring the exclusive ownership of the property upon the petitioner, while incidentally permitting her to obtain vacant possession thereof,” the Bench said.
Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
THE Kerala High Court has declared a woman the exclusive owner of a seven-cent property and residential building in Malappuram district after finding that the entire payment for its purchase had been provided by her father, though the property was registered jointly in the names of the woman and her husband.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar held that the woman’s father had bought the property for her benefit and that the husband had failed to establish that he had contributed any amount towards its purchase. The court also directed the husband to vacate the property within three months.
The judgement was delivered on September 26 in a matrimonial appeal arising from an order of the Family Court, Malappuram.
The dispute concerned a seven-cent property in Manjeri Municipality, purchased in 2015 in the joint names of the woman, Raslin, and her husband, Kurudankandi Shamsheer.
Raslin had claimed that her father had provided Rs 30 lakh for purchasing the property, which was registered jointly in their names to secure her future and for the welfare of the family.
The Family Court had earlier held that the property had been purchased exclusively with money raised by Raslin’s father and directed the husband to pay Rs 15 lakh, representing the value of his half share. The High Court, however, went further and declared Raslin the exclusive owner of the property.
The court noted that a bank statement produced by Raslin’s father showed that Rs 25 lakh had been debited from his account on the date of execution of the sale deed.
The husband Shamsheer, meanwhile, claimed that he had purchased the property using his own funds. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that the money had not been withdrawn from his bank account and claimed that it had been given to him by his brother-in-law, who had worked with him in Saudi Arabia.
The High Court noted that Shamsheer did not produce documents showing how the money had been brought to India. “Thus, he failed to prove the payment of any such amounts,” the court held.
The Bench also noted that the original title deed was in the woman’s possession and that the husband had admitted that she had obtained the sale deed from the Sub-Registry.
“The petitioner’s claim regarding the purchase of property for her with the funds provided by her father, but in the joint names in the best interests of the family, stands proved,” the court said.
Court rejects husband's claim over joint registration
The husband’s counsel argued that since the property had been registered jointly, the woman could not claim exclusive ownership and relied on Section 92 (exclusion of evidence of oral agreement) of the Indian Evidence Act.
The High Court examined the issue in detail and referred to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which permits family courts to receive material that may assist them in effectively resolving a dispute, even if such material would otherwise be inadmissible under the Evidence Act.
In the present case, the court found that the oral evidence of the woman and her father was substantially corroborated by the bank records and concluded that “the entire sale consideration was paid by the father of the petitioner.”
The court further observed that the purpose behind the purchase was the welfare of the daughter and that this was established through the father’s evidence.
Court orders husband to vacate
The woman had originally sought Rs 15 lakh towards the value of her husband’s alleged half share in the property. During the appeal, she also sought a declaration of exclusive ownership and an order directing him to vacate.
The husband opposed the request, arguing that the amendment was belated.
The High Court held that, in family disputes, the role of the court is different from that in ordinary civil litigation and that family courts are empowered to adopt procedures aimed at arriving at the truth.
The Bench found that the woman’s original pleadings had sufficiently disclosed the nature of her claim that her father had paid the entire amount for the property and that the husband had not contributed anything.
“Having been satisfied that the property was purchased for the petitioner, we do not find any impediment in declaring the petitioner's exclusive title in respect of the said property, even without allowing the application for amendment.”
The court further held that the husband could not claim an independent right over the property once the woman’s exclusive title had been established.
“In the interests of justice, the relief in the present case has to be moulded, declaring the exclusive ownership of the property upon the petitioner, while incidentally permitting her to obtain vacant possession thereof,” the Bench said.
