Aastha Thakur
Published on: 19 June, 2022, 17:27 IST
The Kerala High Court observed that when a man buys a property related to real estate business and also includes his wife as one of the lenders in the registered title document. It can’t be said that the said purchase was made for her profit.
The court opined that, “Intentions of the parties is a key factor in determining the nature of the transaction, which could be gathered from the relationship between parties, their conduct before and after the transaction, source of money for the purchase, possession of the property and title documents and repayment of the loan.”
The court gave its decision the petition filed by husband on the dispute over the properties bought in the name of him and his wife. The facts present in the plaint of husband give the impression that he bought those properties for his benefit and not for his wife. He claims that even if named some of the properties under his wife’s name, she has no right, title or interest over any of those assets. She was only party on the paper and vests no beneficial power. He also sought to declare that he was the beneficial owner and the wife was only a name lender/benamidar in the property transactions.
The court observed that this is a case where a husband, after begetting a child in his employee, took that child to his wife, who cannot conceive, as if the child was abandoned by an unwed nurse and offered for adoption. The innocent wife nurtured that child believing the child to be an adopted one, giving him the love and warmth of a mother. Later on, after five years she realized her husband was the biological father of the child conceived through his illegitimate relationship with the employee. Hurt, she returned to her paternal home.
The court termed the husband’s action “brood parasitism which is a breeding strategy adopted by some birds, insects and fishes to raise their young ones”.
However, the court stated that there is no solid evidence against wife to show that she had spent money for buying the properties. And the court also set aside the family court’s order that the wife is the co-owner of the properties.