You have to file declaratory suit that you are absolute owner of property 

2) that full consideration was paid by you 

3) enclose documentary evidence in this regard 

4) son cannot claim the property 

legal fees vary depending upon lawyer engaged by you 

court fees vary from state to state 

on wife demise let other legal heirs relinquish or gift their share in favour of father 

gift deed or relinquishment deed should be duly stamped and registered 

father can bequeath property by will 

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 contemplates certain conditions which are to be fulfilled by plaintiff. In order to obtain the relief of declaration the plaintiff must establish that
(i) the plaintiff was at the time of the suit entitled to any legal character or any right to any property
(ii) the defendant had denied or was interested in denying the character or the title of the plaintiff
(iii) the declaration asked for was a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to a legal character or to a right to property

2) you can file declaratory suit make legal heirs defendants in the suit 

1. The husband can file a suit against his wife claiming his property back by producing the documentary evidences to support his claim for property, i.e., the details of funds transferred to purchase this property.

The referred judgment may be quoted as supporting citation to his claim.

2. He has to file a suit for recovery of possession of his property as well as to declare his title to the property on the basis of the evidences of funds transferred to purchase the property.

3. If the husband is alive, then only he can claim the property and not his son.

The court fee and the advocate fee for filing the declaration suit may be inquired from the advocate who you may choose to engage.

The time taken for disposal of the suit cannot be predicted for various factors involved in it.

If the husband fully funded for the purchase of the property and the wife is refusing to re-convey the property to him on his demand, then he can file a suit for declaration of title and possession of the property as discussed in the above posts.

If the property has been registered in the joint names of the husband and wife, then the question of the wife to execute a registered gift deed in his favor to transfer her rights in the property in his favor would arise.

Do not get confused by reading between the lines of various opinions of this site. 

1. Title vests in the person in whose favour the sale deed is executed regardless of who has paid the sale consideration.

2. The only way husband can claim the property is by filing a suit for declaration to declare that he is the true owner of the property in question, wherein he will have to prove that sale consideration was paid by him alone.

1. The cost will be the fee of your lawyer and the court fee.

2. If wife is dead then property has devolved on her husband and children. There is no question of filing a declaratory suit against a dead person.

Dear Sir,

My answers are as follows: 1.Husband purchased a property in wife name in the year 2000 from his known sources of income. According to this ruling can he claim back the property? (Note: wife passed away.)

Ans: Yes, on the death of wife you became absolute owner because you have invested entire amount and wife has no source of income.  

2.Legally how can he claim back the property?

Ans: You can file a declaratory suit or with the help of death certificate of your wife you can change the Katha in your name.  

3. Can a son claim back the property on behalf of his father?

Ans: Let the son contest the case and most probably son cannot get such property because it is exclusive property of the father. If father desires he may gift away such property to the son. Son cannot claim such property on behalf of his father when father is alive.  

4. How much it will cost to file declaratory suit. And how long will be the processing time. I have clear documentary evidence in this regard.

Ans: It depends upon market value of the property and advocates fee may be between 60k to 1,00,000/-. 

5. One final question. I read about declaratory suit, to file this suit, there should be a defendant (wife already dead). Is there any other legal way to do it. if there any dispute in future, why cant the son claim the rights on behalf of his father (after fathers death).

Ans: All this things can be decided in personal discussions.  

6. I am bit confused, on wife dismiss, cant a husband claim the property which was earned by him.

Ans: Yes, husband can claim.

7. Gift deed or relinquishment deed is another topic where he will get only his share not the whole property.

Ans: It is not possible. Since, wife is no more.

Dear Querist

The first question is that when the wife was passed away?

if three years have been passed then the suit for declaration is barred by Limitation Act-1963 because the limitation for filing the declaration suit is 3 years.

the suit is maintainable against the other legal heirs of the deceased by your father.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+ RFA No.522/2017 and C.M. No.19306/2017(stay)

% 7th August, 2018

MANOJ ARORA ..... Appellant

 Through: Mr. M. Sufian Siddiqui,

 Advocate with Mr. Rakesh

 Bhugra, Advocate with

 appellant in person.

 versus

MAMTA ARORA ..... Respondent

 Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana,


 Advocate with Ms. Akshita

 Chhatwal, Advocate and Mr.

 Anirudh Ahuja, Advocate with

 respondent in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 19.12.2016 by which trial court has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by applying provisions of Sections 4 read with repealed Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

2. The subject suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff/husband pleading that the two properties with respect to which reliefs of declaration and injunction were claimed in the suit, namely B-1/58, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi-15 and bearing no. B-206, C-DOT, CGHS Apartments, Sector-56, Gurgaon, were purchased by the appellant/plaintiff/husband from his own sources as stated in the plaint including paras 9 and 11 of the plaint. Paras 9 and 11 of the plaint read as under:-

"9. That the earnest money for the purchase of the property was bearing no. B-1/58, New Moti Nagar, Delhi of Rs.25,000/-(Rs Twenty Five thousand only) has been paid by the Plaintiff vide cheque no.511459 dated 03.02.2001 for the amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) and Rs.5,000/-(Rs Five thousand only) in cash. That the balance amount of Rs Eight lacs has been paid by the Plaintiff from the sources which are as follows:

 Fixed deposit matures on 19.05.2001 -Rs.69,085


 Sale of shares of Reliance Industries -Rs.63,000

 Sold Janta Flat in Tagore Garden

 (Property was in the name of Plaintiff) -Rs.1,85,000

 Provident fund 28.05.2001 -Rs.79,600

 Personal loan secured from CitiBank -Rs 80,000

 Personal loan taken from Brother-

 In-law and returned to Sister vide cheque -Rs.60,000

Rest of the amount was arranged by taking loan from friends.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

11. That thereafter the Plaintiff purchased another property bearing no. B-206, C-DOT, CGHS Apartments, Sector-56 Gurgaon for the amount of Rs.47,00,000/- (Rs Fourty Seven Lacs only). That the above said property has been planned to be purchased by the parties in the joint name of the Plaintiff as well as Defendant from the joint owners Smt. Sangeeta Srivastava and Sh. Rajmohan Srivastava. However due to change in the policies of the society, Plaintiff had to purchase the aforementioned property also in the name of the Defendant. Details of the payment and the source of income is mentioned herein below:

From A/C of Plaintiff vide cheque bearing no.160517 -Rs.5,00,000/-

cheque bearing no.160518 -Rs.5,00,000/-

 Vide Cheque bearing no.914362/


 363/364 in the name -Rs.2,60,000/-

 of Vikrant Madaan as per

 request of vendee.

 Loan Sanctioned from ICICI Bank -Rs.30,99,000/-

Monthly installments for the amount of Rs.34,123 earlier and for the amount of Rs.30,457/- has regularly been debited from the savings account of Plaintiff since August 2007. That further an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has also been paid to the Bank towards prepayment of the loan."

3. Accordingly in the suit, reliefs of declaration and injunction were claimed that it was the appellant/plaintiff/husband who was the owner of the properties and not the respondent/defendant/wife.

4. Unfortunately, the trial court has committed a grave and fundamental error in rejecting the suit plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by relying upon the provision of Section 4 and repealed provision of Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act. When the impugned judgment was passed on 19.12.2016, what was, and is now applicable is the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 which became applicable w.e.f 1.11.2016. As per Section 2(9) of the Amended Act what is a Benami Transaction is stated/specified, and also those transactions which are not benami are are also stated/specified. 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) inasmuch as it is legally permissible for a person to purchase an immovable property in the name of his spouse from his known sources, and in which position, 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.

5. By the impugned judgment since the suit has been held to be barred at the threshold by applying Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and the plaint has been rejected by applying the repealed provision of Section 3(2) of the Act which was no longer applicable, and by ignoring the provision of Section 2(9)(A)(b) Exception (iii) which was applicable, the impugned judgment is hence illegal and is set aside. Whether or not the appellant/plaintiff/husband will or will not have the benefit of Section 2(9)(A)(b) Exception (iii) is a matter of fact which requires trial and such a suit cannot be rejected at the threshold by applying Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

6. In view of the aforesaid position, this appeal is allowed. Impugned Judgment dated 19.12.2016 is set aside. Suit would be tried and disposed of by the trial court in accordance with law after trial/evidence.

7. Parties to appear before the District & Sessions Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 29th August, 2018 and the District & Sessions Judge will mark the suit for disposal to a competent court in accordance with law.

8. Appeal is disposed of in terms of aforesaid observations.

AUGUST 07, 2018 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J




Feel Free to Call