Joint Title Presumes Equal Share Unless Exclusive Consideration Proved By Documented Evidence: Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court has held that where a sale deed stands in the joint names of a husband and wife, both parties are presumed under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act to hold equal undivided shares unless the party seeking a declaration of exclusive ownership produces cogent documentary proof evidencing that the entire purchase consideration proceeded solely from their funds.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar ruled that a spouse cannot dislodge the co-ownership of the other spouse merely through an uncorroborated oral claim of having funded the transaction through overseas employment without producing relevant bank records.

The litigation originated from an original petition filed before the Family Court by a husband claiming absolute title and possession over a property purchased in 1992 under a registered sale deed jointly executed in the names of himself and his late wife. The husband asserted that the property was acquired exclusively with his foreign earnings, that his wife had surreptitiously included her name without his knowledge, and that her subsequent 2015 settlement deed conveying her share to her sister was invalid. The Family Court declared the husband to be the absolute title holder after concluding that the sister failed to prove financial contribution by the deceased wife toward the purchase consideration.

Whether a spouse named as a joint purchaser in a registered sale deed can be deprived of co-ownership rights without documentary evidence proving that the entire purchase consideration proceeded exclusively from the other spouse under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Whether an unexplained delay of over 24 years in challenging the joint nature of a registered conveyance discredits a spouse's claim of having had no knowledge of the inclusion of the other spouse's name.

The High Court closely analyzed the husband's core contention that he remained unaware of his wife's inclusion as a co-purchaser in the 1992 title deed until her demise in December 2016. The Bench observed that an alleged lack of awareness spanning more than two decades regarding a registered conveyance in which one is named as a joint purchaser defies basic credulity.

Plea of being unaware of spouse's name in joint deed for 24 years rejected:

The Court held that such an extended period of inaction and purported ignorance undermined the credibility of the suit, observing: "The contention of the petitioner is that he was unaware of the inclusion of the name of Jameela Beevi in the sale deed. Apparently, the claim that, since the execution of Ext.A1 in the year 1992 till the death of Jameela Beevi in December, 2016, for a period of more than 24 years, he was unaware that the sale deed depicted his wife as a co-owner, is on the face of it unbelievable and difficult to be accepted."

Burden rests on claimant to establish exclusive funding through financial records:

Addressing the evidentiary burden under property law, the Bench observed that when an instrument of conveyance expressly stands in joint names, the legal burden rests squarely on the person claiming exclusive title to prove that the entire consideration flowed from them. The Court underscored that despite alleging that overseas employment earnings financed the acquisition, the husband failed to produce any documentary evidence of foreign remittances.

The Bench highlighted the total absence of banking records: "When Ext.A1 stands in the joint names of the petitioner and his wife, late Jameela Beevi, it is for him to prove that the entire consideration proceeded from him. The claim is that he was working abroad and the income therefrom was utilised for the purchase. If that be so, necessarily there must be Bank records evidencing transfer of amounts from abroad, which enabled the purchase. No scrap of paper in the said regard is produced. As noticed earlier, till the death of Jameela Beevi, for a period of 24 years he had not raised any claim regarding exclusive title over the property."

Section 45 Transfer of Property Act mandates presumption of equal tenancy in common:

Applying the statutory mandate of Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Bench held that when consideration cannot be shown to have proceeded in distinct proportions, joint purchasers are deemed to hold equal interests. Since the husband could not prove that he exclusively funded the purchase, the deceased wife was the lawful holder of an undivided one-half share, which she was legally competent to convey to her sister through the unchallenged settlement deed.

The Bench emphasized the statutory consequence: "Having failed to prove that the entire consideration for the purchase of Ext.A1 proceeded from the petitioner, and Ext.A1 being in the joint names of the petitioner and his wife, in terms of Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, it can only be held that the petitioner and Jameela Beevi had rights over the property in equal proportions. Jameela Beevi had conveyed her rights in favour of the sister, the respondent herein, under Ext.A3. The said document remains unchallenged."

The High Court held that the husband possessed only an undivided one-half right in the property and could not be granted a decree declaring absolute title. Setting aside the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and dismissed the original petition.

Date of Decision: November 5, 2026