Recent Topic

10/recent/ticker-posts

About Me

Husband Cannot Claim Exclusive Ownership of Joint Property Merely by Paying EMIs: Delhi High Court

 

Husband Cannot Claim Exclusive Ownership of Joint Property Merely by Paying EMIs: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has clarified that a husband cannot claim exclusive ownership of a property merely on the basis of having paid the equated monthly instalments (EMIs) when the property is registered jointly in the names of both spouses. The ruling reinforces the principle that legal ownership of property in joint names presumes equal contribution, regardless of who finances the purchase. The Court emphasized that allowing the husband’s claim would contravene statutory provisions under Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act (PBPT Act), which prohibits a person from asserting ownership over property held in another’s name.

The case before the High Court involved a couple married in 1999 who jointly purchased a flat in Mumbai in 2005. The husband and wife began living separately in 2006, and the husband filed for divorce in the same year. The property in question was subsequently sold, and proceeds of approximately ₹1.09 crore were deposited in a joint bank account. The husband claimed entitlement to the entire sum, arguing that he had solely financed the EMIs. The wife contested this, asserting her right to her share of the proceeds on the basis that the property was in both their names.

Upon review, the Delhi High Court held that the property’s registration in joint names created a legal presumption of co-ownership. It clarified that a spouse’s unilateral financial contribution does not override the statutory presumption that both parties hold equal ownership in jointly registered property. The Court noted that in marital property disputes, courts often rely on the principle that acquisition of property by a married couple in joint names implies shared ownership unless there is clear evidence of an intention to create separate ownership.

Furthermore, the Court referred to Section 4 of the PBPT Act, which prevents a person from claiming to be the “real owner” of property held in another’s name in order to defeat the interests of the recorded owner. By asserting that the property was exclusively his because he paid the EMIs, the husband’s claim was considered inconsistent with this statutory protection. The Court held that financial contributions alone cannot transform the legal character of the property when statutory safeguards protect co-owners, particularly in the context of a joint marital home.

The Court upheld the wife’s entitlement to half of the sale proceeds of the property and rejected the husband’s claim to exclusive ownership. Additionally, it confirmed the family court’s refusal to grant a divorce to the husband and directed him to pay interim maintenance to his wife. The decision underscores that the mere fact of paying EMIs does not confer proprietary rights that override joint ownership recorded in the property’s title.

This ruling reaffirms the legal principles governing jointly owned marital property, emphasizing that statutory provisions, including the PBPT Act, protect the interests of co-owners and prevent unilateral claims based on financial contributions. The Delhi High Court’s decision serves as a significant precedent in property disputes arising from marital separations, establishing that joint registration carries the presumption of equal ownership, and financial contributions alone are insufficient to claim exclusive rights over jointly owned property.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community

Post a Comment

0 Comments

'; (function() { var dsq = document.createElement('script'); dsq.type = 'text/javascript'; dsq.async = true; dsq.src = '//' + disqus_shortname + '.disqus.com/embed.js'; (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(dsq); })();