The Allahabad High Court held that a property purchased by Hindu husband in the name of his homemaker wife having no independent source of income, can be presumed to be the property of family.

The Lucknow Bench of the Court held thus in an appeal filed by a man against the order of the Civil Judge by which his injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was rejected.

A Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed, “This Court under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act may presume the existence of fact that the property purchased by Hindu husband in the name of his spouse, who is homemaker and does not have independent source of income, will be the property of family, because in common course of natural event Hindu husband purchases a property in the name of his wife, who is homemaker and does not have any source of income for the benefit of family.”

Advocate Pritish Kumar represented the appellant while Advocate Ankit Srivastava represented the respondents.

In this case, the crux of the matter was that the appellant husband filed a civil suit impleading the respondents (wife and others) as defendants, for a declaration that he was the co-sharer of 1/4th part of the property in dispute as the property belonged to joint family property because it was purchased by his father. In the said suit, the specific plea was taken that his wife was the house maker and did not have any independent source of income.

Through a sale deed, the husband's father purchased the property in dispute and it was further mentioned in the plaint that the husband also made construction over that plot, and thereafter, the entire family was running a business therein. Therefore, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. was filed during the pendency of the suit with a prayer that the respondent may be restrained from transferring the same. The said application for interim injunction was dismissed by the lower court and hence, the husband approached the High Court.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “… here the appellant is claiming the declaration of only 1⁄4th share in the property in dispute on the ground that the property belongs to a joint Hindu family and the property was purchased during lifetime of father of the appellant in the name of respondent no.1, who was homemaker.”

The Court held that in such case prima facie the property is joint Hindu family property and protection of property from transferring to a third party is necessary.

“… consequently this Court finds that the Court below, while passing the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 has not applied his mind despite being a prima facie case, and in such case protection is necessary against further transferring the property or changing the nature of same, if same is not protected, there are chances the property may be transferred or nature of property may be changed in that case even if the appellant's suit is decreed, then he will suffer irreparable loss and injury”, it added.

The Court also restrained the respondents from transferring the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

Cause Title- Saurabh Gupta v. Archna Gupta and 2 Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:13664)


Appellant: Advocates Pritish Kumar and Vipul Gupta.

Respondents: Advocate Ankit Srivastava, RBS Rathaur, and Advocate Rajneesh Maurya.

Click here to read/download the Judgment