Wife suspiction on husband

Though I am not very with the facts. In absence of any agreement to the contrary, just spending money on the construction would not vest any title as regards the land in you. 

Feel free to talk bharat.law06@gmail.com

@ Author

1. Yes. With passage of time you will get divorce on grounds of mental cruelties. Reasoning:
- Constant taunting behavior of one spouse upon another leads to mental cruelties.
- Taunts leading to driving away of one spouse from same roof amounts to “disturbed (injurious) quality of their matrimonial life”
- If you can substantiate stated allegations by witness (close family and or taunts said in front of close friends) statements then mental cruelties is reasonably established in concerned Court.

2. Yes. The property will be split into 50:50 once appropriate suit matter filed.
Reasoning:
- The property has now gone under the carpet of The Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988
- Neither she can substantiate if the land and or construction payments are 100% self supported all the way nor you can substantiate the legal rights other the land and or constructions without money in-flow trail (as you say some 10 L spent already) for land and or construction as the fine evidentry facts may lead to later once such claim in floor of concerned Court.
- However doable is all that I can hint at this early stage.


Suggest to hire competent Civil law and Family Law advocate.


PS.: Next time it is suggested to write query in sentence case as Upper Case query of yours looks more or less addressed as shouting to us for no fault of ours in between two spouse decade old miss-trust J 

I differ with Tajobs on this, which is rarely so.

How can benami transactions come into picture. 

I agree that spending money w/o proof  or even with proof doesnot give any title claim in any property. If proof exists, civil suit for recovery of that amount is possible.

@ Shonee,

Thank you for placing your single line of disagreement which I read here.


Here are my views for considering reviewing your say about my last posting to this query before us;



To state in brief matter before LCI Family Law forum is that the proposed Plaintiff husband (author of this brief) claims that he built a house on a land and he further claims that he spent nearly 10 L in building a house over it. Now proposed plaintiff husband claims from proposed respondent wife his share of 10 L the money that he spent in constructing the house on the land whose ostensible owner is his proposed respondent wife. The proposed respondent wife in her rejoinder (pre-assuming) says that the land belongs to her and the house was constructed by her own money and proposed plaintiff husband has no claims over neither on the land and nor on constructed house over it hence dismiss with heavy cost his mutation suit matter.  

Issues as per my understanding:

1. A Single replier writer here have erred in law in holding that the (proposed) suit transaction is barred in view of the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

2. A Single replier writer here have erred purely being single replier writer perceptions basis that spending money w/o proof  or even with proof doesnot give any title claim in any property. If proof exists, civil suit for recovery of that amount is possible.

3. A Single replier writers here ought to have considered that under the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, any suit by the proposed respondent wife is clearly barred as the property stands on money paid by the proposed plaintiff husband.

Reasoning given by me why I forecast in my previous reply to @ author of this post usage of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and same is under challenge by a single replier writer before us:

Well when a mutation suit may get filed by proposed husband @ author of this post no material to show that wife had received any funds either from her father or any scholarship and out of which she could have purchase the suit property will come as material records nor same is mentioned before us in first brief of this @ author. Plaintiff husband as per my pre-assumption is a while color serviceman and had probably taken loan and or have spent from his service savings the alleged amount to construct the house. I pre-assume that plaintiff/husband had purchased the suit property in the name of wife and as he had paid the consideration amount he is the real owner and wife was only benamidar. In my opinion said finding of fact cannot be said to be either perverse or against the record. Hence such transaction is not barred under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act when the transaction took place out of a clear money trail from books of accounts of this husband here and may be shown as material records when mutation case goes to floor of the Court.


You see when the mutation matter reaches the Court it would become material to note that respondent (wife) father (FIL of the @ author) nowhere will depose that he had provided any funds to his daughter to purchase the property nor he will depose that she was getting any scholarship for her education after her marriage. In view of this, there will be no material to show that the respondent wife had ever received any funds either from her father or any scholarship and out of the same she could purchase the suit property. That is the material fact I assumed much before this brief could ever be placed for mutation as is usually seen in husband / wife benami property issues where husband out of becoming more scapegoat tries to wriggle out atleast his part of monies spent in such properties on name of ostensible owner (wife and or minor children he makes property owner during his hay days!)

Now let me add and I will be honest with my pre-assumptions here that I cannot guess when a sale deed was executed but assume for sure that relations between the husband and wife would have been cordial then when house was being constructed which is enough and plaintiff husband evidence later will show that because of love and affection for the wife he had purchased the land in the name of wife and or did the construction of house on that land of wife. This would appear to be quite reasonable and logical in the suit matter.

Now let us see what does the Law says about my previous reply clubbed with above reasoning’s;


The provisions of S. 3, 5 and 8 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (The Act 1988 hereinafter) came into force on 5.9.1988, while the remaining provisions were deemed to have come into force on 19.5.1988 is my understanding of the Act, 1988.

Under S 2 (a) "Benami transaction" means any transaction in which property is transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by another person. S. 3(1) prohibits any benami transaction and it provides that no person shall enter into any benami transaction.


Under S. 3(3) whoever enters into any benami transaction shall be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment. S. 4 provides that no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property.


Thus, while the Act 1988 prohibits any benami transaction and the person who enters into any benami transaction is liable to be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, it also provides that a person, who claims to be real owner, cannot claim any right or title over the property held benami by the ostensible owner.


However, Ss (2) (a) of S. 3 clearly provides that nothing in Ss (1) shall apply to the purchase of property by any person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter and it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the said property had been purchased for the benefit of the wife or unmarried daughter. In view of this, it becomes clear that the prohibition against benami transaction is not applicable if the property is purchased in the name of the wife or unmarried daughter. Therefore, claim of such property by the person claiming to be the real owner from the wife or unmarried daughter, who may be ostensible owner, is also not prohibited.

Ss (2) (a) of S. 3 provides that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the property had been purchased for the benefit of wife or unmarried daughter. Therefore, the Court is bound to raise a presumption in favour of the wife or the unmarried daughter that the property was purchased for her benefit. Of course, the presumption is rebuttal and the burden to rebut that presumption is on the husband (plaintiff here) or father of the ostensible owner (respondent wife here) as the case may be, who claims to be the real owner. Under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 any transaction entered into prior to the coming into force of the Act between the ostensible owner and the real owner is not voided by any provision whatsoever. I lay my pre-assumption that the land was bought much later as well as the construction is recent and probably due to taxation issues this plaintiff did not clear the revenue title on his name instead purchased and then built the house on wife name.


Be it so since it is question of acrimony between a husband and wife and huge sum of money illegally holded up by wife is in stage I lay my best bet to recover unde ra mutation suit by husband declaring the land to belong to ostensible owner i.e. respondent wife and thus recover his 10 L and in my opinion there is no other way that he could ever recover his 10 L.

@ Shonee

May be now you may reconsider reviewing your rare difference of opinion to my positing(s)!


Also / well I am open to solving further challenge if any in this Rs. 10 L brief matter if usage of law based on facts instead of placing single liner disagreement is highlighted with some more material wisdom words of by your goodself. 

@ Tajobs,

I am not against you in court of law to respond to the same, which I can very well do. I would reply in my own manner. And if it was a challange to draw me into it, I refuse to accept the challange to be drawn into it, I have better things at hand.

Unnessary Presumptions you have taken:

1. The land does not belong to the lady, or even if it belongs, the source of funds are questionable.

2. That the cost of building was 10 lacs only or close to it, which lady could not have spent.

3. Filing a case under Benaami Transactions Prohibition Act, gives a stopper to enjoyment in the name of the owner/ possessor of the property till the case is on. 

4. The lady is in some hurry to sell the house and move on. The querist on the other hand wants to stop this from happening at all costs.

Hence, filing of suit with some presumptive returns, when the querist wants a divorce, is not correct. Long drawn battles leave deep scars and the loss is much more than Rs. 10 Lacs in the longer run.

If I was the querist, I would love to settle the matter with divorce and leaving that Rs. 10 Lacs.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

PS: Counsel need not dispense legal advise only. People want resolution to the problems and not GYAAN. That is what we should strive to deliver.

PPS: I also guess you and I both have seen the losses mounting in long drawn battles. 

PPS1: Ceaser said and I repeat, "Space I can recover, time never."

@ Shonee ji, 

Your take on PPS1- sapce i can recover,time ne'er!! Isn't it indeed told by Napoleon Bonaparte?

Reference- Robert Green, The 33 Strategies of War.

I stand corrected. It is indeed Napolean.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com