Kerala High Court held that a wife is entitled to half share in property registered solely in her husband’s name if her monetary contribution is proved, stating the transaction “partakes the character of a trust.” The Court ruled that Section 92 of the Evidence Act cannot prevent her from claiming her rightful share.
The Kerala High Court has delivered an important ruling stating that a wife has the right to claim a one-half share in a property bought in her husband’s name if she can prove that she contributed money toward its purchase.
A Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar said that such a transaction “partakes the character of a trust” and rejected the husband’s argument that the wife cannot contradict the registered title deed under Section 92 of the Evidence Act, calling it unsustainable.
The judgment came in an appeal filed by a woman challenging a 2018 decision of the Family Court, Kollam, which had dismissed her case seeking rights over 8 cents of land and a two-storey house.
The High Court overturned the Family Court’s order and declared that the wife is entitled to a half share in the property, along with an injunction protecting her possession.
The couple had married in 1974. The husband started out as a bus conductor and retired as a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The wife told the Family Court that the property was bought using money arranged by her—Rs 1.53 lakh from her father and brothers—while the husband paid only about Rs 50,000 out of the total sale price of Rs 2 lakh.
She explained that the property was registered solely in his name only because she was a “pardanashin lady” and could not go for the registration. She also stated that the house was built using the sale proceeds of her gold ornaments and timber provided by her father.
She filed the case after the husband issued talaq and attempted to bring another woman into the house.
The husband claimed that he alone purchased the property using his earnings, along with a housing loan, a KSFE chit, and PF loan. He accepted that he sold her ornaments but said he bought new ones later, which were stolen.
The Family Court dismissed her petition saying it was not maintainable under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act.
While hearing the appeal, the High Court closely examined the evidence, including important admissions the husband had made during a vigilance enquiry regarding disproportionate assets.
In that enquiry, he had admitted that the property was purchased for Rs 2,00,250, that he received “Rs 53,000/-” from the wife’s brother through two NRI drafts and “Rs 50,000/-” from another brother, and that the house was constructed in 1994-95 for Rs 4.25 lakh.
Most importantly, he had admitted that he
“sold the petitioner’s gold ornaments at Haris Jewellery, Paravur, for Rs 1,60,192.50, to meet the expenses of the construction,”
and that he had produced receipts during that enquiry.
In court, he admitted he made these statements but tried to explain them away by claiming he only said so
“to extricate himself from the enquiry proceedings and that the statements recorded therein were not true.”
The High Court strongly rejected this explanation, saying,
“We are unable to accept such a contention,” and added that accepting it “is wholly inadmissible in a judicial enquiry, as accepting it would virtually amount to the Court endorsing the respondent’s own claim that he, while acting as a public servant, had acquired assets disproportionate to his bona fide income.”
The Court further found that the husband had no proof to show he had repaid the alleged “loans” from his brothers-in-law.
It also found the testimony of the jewellery shop owner unreliable because he admitted that he never told the vigilance officer about the supposed later purchase of 50 sovereigns of gold and had issued no bill for it despite being VAT-registered.
The Court held that the wife’s claim that the jeweller testified falsely “under the undue influence of the respondent, a former local police officer” was more believable.
The husband also argued that the suit should be dismissed because it was filed 14 years after the sale. The Court rejected this, stating that
“So long as the marital relationship subsisted, the petitioner had no occasion or reason to challenge the sale arrangement,”
and noted that the talaq notices in 2009 clearly triggered the dispute.
Based on the husband’s own statements recorded in the vigilance enquiry, the High Court calculated the total value of the property and building as Rs 6,25,250 and the wife’s proven contribution as Rs 3,13,000, which, the Court said,
“is equivalent to one-half of the total value.”
The Court clarified that the Family Court was wrong to dismiss the case on the basis of the Transfer of Property Act, stating that the wife’s claim clearly comes under Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act.
The husband again tried to argue that Section 92 of the Evidence Act prevents the wife from contradicting the title deed.
The High Court rejected this argument for two reasons: first, because the rule against oral evidence “applies only as between the parties to the instrument,” and second, because when a property is purchased for the benefit of the family, “the transaction partakes the character of a trust.”
ALSO READ: Husband Must Fund Wife’s Education for her Empowerment: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Therefore, the wife can seek a declaration of her right
“irrespective of the recitals in the deed.”
Finally, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Family Court’s order. It declared that
“the petitioner has a one-half share in the scheduled property and the building situated thereon, irrespective of what is stated in Sale Deed No. 3499/1993 of Kollam SRO.”
Since the wife resides in the house, the Court also issued an injunction
“restraining the respondent and persons claiming under him from forcefully interfering with the possession of the petitioner from the said land and building or from transferring or alienating her rights therein.”
Read Order:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
