The Karnataka High Court has held that a woman’s lack of employment or an independent income, by itself, cannot justify treating property registered in her name as joint family property. The Court said that such a conclusion must be supported by reliable evidence showing that the property was actually purchased from joint family funds.
A Division Bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by M/s Rajesh Exports Limited against a 2009 decree concerning property in Bengaluru.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned property purchased through a registered Sale Deed dated March 14, 1963, in the name of Smt. Lalithamma. After her death in 1987, her son, S. Balasubramanya, later executed a Sale Deed in favour of Rajesh Exports Limited in 2004.
Balasubramanya’s wife, B. Sarojamma, and their sons, B. Devaraj and B. Yogesh, filed a suit claiming shares in the property. They argued that although the 1963 Sale Deed stood in Lalithamma’s name, the property had actually been acquired using joint family funds.
The trial court accepted their case in 2009, treating the property as joint family property and granting each plaintiff a 1/4th share. It also held that the subsequent sale in favour of Rajesh Exports was not binding on their shares.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the registered 1963 Sale Deed and noted that it expressly identified Lalithamma as the purchaser. The document also recorded receipt of the sale consideration by her, delivery of possession and her right to collect rent from tenants.
The Bench found that the plaintiffs had failed to produce cogent evidence establishing that joint family funds were available and were used to purchase the property.
"Merely to assume, that because Smt. Lalithamma was a woman and was unemployed, she would not have any funds, as has been assumed by the learned Trial Court, would not be in order."
The Court further held that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, recognises property acquired by a female Hindu through purchase as her full property, unless the evidence establishes otherwise.
Decision
The Bench concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish either that the property was acquired from joint family funds or that Lalithamma was merely a nominal purchaser. It therefore treated the property as having been acquired by her in her own right.
The High Court accordingly allowed Rajesh Exports’ appeal, set aside the September 15, 2009 judgment and decree of the trial court, and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
No order was made as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Rajesh Exports Limited v. Sri B. Devaraj & Ors.
Case Number: RFA No. 1165 of 2009
Judge: Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
Decision Date: August 29, 2026
-300x169.webp)