The Kerala High Court recently ordered a husband to vacate a house where he was staying, despite his name also being on the property’s title deed.
The case involved Mr Kurudankandi, a resident of Thalasseri in the Kanur district, Kerala. On September 15, 2012, Kurudankandi married Smt Shereef. According to the submission to the court, Smt Shereef’s father gifted Kurudankandi 5000 Saudi Rials and also bought a house in the joint name of his daughter and son-in-law for the couple’s happy married life.
After the marriage, she moved abroad with her husband, Kurudankandi. For a while the couple lived abroad and then came back to India. Kurudankandi’s brother also worked in the Gulf.
From time to time, Kurudankandi also received financial support from Shereef’s father. On one occasion, there was a need to renovate the house, so her father paid Kurudankandi Rs 5.5 lakh. He also gave him 5,000 Saudi Rials, as mentioned earlier. However, as per Shereef, Kurudankandi’s behaviour changed over time and eventually became unbearable for her, leading to the breakdown of their marriage. When the marriage fell apart, she demanded her gold items back and claimed the house as her father fully paid for it.
After a court mediation session, Kurudankandi deposited Rs 3 lakh in her father’s bank account but did not leave the house or pay money for it. Karundankandi challenged Shereef’s father’s contention, saying the house was purchased with funds given by his brother. But he could not prove his claim in court, so the court did not accept it.
The house measures 7 cents and is located in Manjeri Municipality. At the time of their marriage, Shereef’s father paid Rs 30 lakh for it, but the title has Shereef and Kurudankandi’s joint names. The title deeds are still with Shereef’s father. To pay for this house, Shereef’s father obtained a home loan of Rs 25 lakh from Nilambur Co-operative Urban Bank, Edavanna Branch.
On September 26, 2026, Kurudankandi lost the case in the Kerala High Court and the court ordered him to vacate the property within three months.
Why did the husband has to vacate the propertyeven though the house's title deed has both wife and husband's joint name?
Asha Kiran Sharma, Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva, said to ET Wealth Online: The Kerala high Court looked at who actually paid for the house rather than whoose name is on the title deed. So in this case the wife's father proved that he paid for the house via bank loan. Her father's bank statement showed Rs 25 lakhs credited on November 2, 2015 and the same amount debited on November 9, 2015, the day the sale deed was signed.
Moreover, even though the husband claimed his brother helped him provide funds to buy this house, it could not be proved while the wife's father's home loan aspect was proved. Moreover, the husband also admitted that the original title deed was with his wife and that she had collected the registered deed herself.
Sharma says that under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act when people buy property together without a contract saying otherwise, each owns a share in proportion to what they paid. The husband had paid nothing, so his half share on paper gave him no real interest. Thus the Kerala High Court declared the wife the sole owner and gave him three months to leave.
So essentially, she won the house because her father's bank records traced the money.
In practice, money from a parent should be recorded as either a gift or a loan. According to Sharma, if the contributions to a property are unequal, the title deed or a separate written declaration should say who owns what, rather than leaving it to a joint name and an unwritten understanding.
Kerala High Court discussion about the property
Justice Sathish Ninan of the Kerala High Court heard this case.
The Kerala High Court observed that contrary to the husband’s (Kurudankandi’s) claim, Shereef’s father proved that he has availed a home loan from Nilambur Co-operative Urban Bank, Edavanna Branch, for purchasing the house.
So, apart from stoutly contending that the property was purchased by him (Kurudankandi) using his own funds, no evidence has been brought before the court to show the source from which he raised the amount paid for the sale consideration.
During cross-examination, Kurudankandi was confronted with that aspect. He then admitted that the amount had not been withdrawn from any bank account, but had been given to him by his brother-in-law, who was working abroad along with him.
The Kerala High Court said that firstly he did not examine the said person to prove the source of the funds. He also failed to produce any documents to show how the money was brought to India for purchasing the property. If he had paid the consideration or any part of it, definitely, he would have had some material to prove the same, especially since he was abroad at that time.
The Kerala High Court said: “Thus, he failed to prove the payment of any such amounts.”
The Kerala High Court said that it is significant to note that he admitted during cross-examination that the original title deed of the property is in her possession. He also conceded that it was her who obtained the sale deed from the sub-registry.
In view of the above discussion, the Kerala High Court ruled that her claim regarding the purchase of property for her with the funds provided by her father, but in the joint names in the best interests of the family, stands proved.
Thus, the husband lost the house, and the Kerala High Court ordered him to vacate the house within three months.