Property will belong to husband even bought on wife’s name: HC

NP NEWS NETWORK

NEW DELHI

The Delhi High Court has given an important decision that if a person has purchased the property from a known source of income and is in the name of his spouse, he will be the owner, and not his wife in whose name the title deeds exist.

[amazon_link asins=’B01DF8ZC42,B07DBLQRK2,B01N9QZ0TR,B01HQ4O058,B077TR7RT5,B019XSHB7O,B00OZ56H6W,B0753C7QVD’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’policenama100-21′ marketplace=’IN’ link_id=’e5c2ab13-9d73-11e8-8bbe-8f9a7130dbd9′]

The trial court had taken the grounds of an old law giving the result of this case.

However, this Act does is not applicable anymore. Therefore, the trial court has made a serious and fundamental error while making the decision. The previous law is not in order, it has not been taken into consideration by the trial court, as it is barred under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act said Judge Valmiki J Mehta.

The trial court has said in its verdict that the husband cannot claim the property purchased in the name of his spouse.

Advocate M Sufian Siddiqui, appearing for the man, said the properties purchased by the husband at Delhi and Gurgaon were from his known sources of income which did not fall under benami property, post amendment of the Act in 2016.

[amazon_link asins=’B07FK2LLQ2,B076D88LQM,B017JCKLBY,B079T454R6,B07DRH9RQ4,B01BPAFGZC,B07BY611WV,938261608X’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’policenama100-21′ marketplace=’IN’ link_id=’1373991d-9d74-11e8-955e-7b468c7ed5ba’]

The HC agreed with the man’s contention and observed, “As per the suit plaint/averments, in the present case the existence of the properties in the name of the respondent/defendant/wife will fall as an Exception to the prohibited benami transaction in view of Section 2(9)(A)(b) Exception (iii) it is legally permissible for a person to purchase an immovable property in the name of his spouse from his known sources.”

“The property purchased will not be a benami property but the property will be of the de jure owner/plaintiff/husband and not of the de facto owner (in whose name title deeds exist), being the respondent/defendant/wife in the present case” it said.

The HC directed the trial court to decide afresh on whether the husband will have the benefit of the Act’s amendments.