He asserted that he had constructed on the plot and that the entire family had operated a business there. When he sought an injunction to prevent his family from transferring the property by filing an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the court below dismissed his plea based on a written statement by the respondent-family members, who claimed that the property had been gifted by his father to his mother. Subsequently, he appealed against the lower court's decision to the high court.

The son's counsel argued before the court that since the mother was a homemaker, therefore, the property purchased by the father in her name, would be a joint family property and not an individual property belonging to the mother. He referred to the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of the high court in the case of Kuldeep Sharma and others vs Satyendra Kumar Sharma and others (2001) where it was held that "if Hindu husband purchases a property in the name of his wife, who is homemaker then it is to be presumed that it is a benami transaction unless otherwise shown to be purchased by the wife from her source of income".

On the contrary, the counsel representing the respondent-family members, including the mother, cited the case of Manohar Lal Sharma and others vs Pyare Lal and others (1974). In this case, the high court had noted that "there is no presumption that a Hindu joint family owns the joint properties unless it is established that it had sufficient nucleus to acquire that property."

He also cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Thr. Lrs) vs Purushottam (2020), where it was held that unless there is evidence to demonstrate that payment was made to purchase the property from the funds of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), the property cannot be deemed to belong to the HUF.

The single judge bench, while deeming the injunction application filed by the son maintainable, also interpreted that Proviso (iii) of Section 2(9)(b) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, specifies that if a husband acquires property in the name of his wife or children, it will not be considered Benami property. Instead, it will be deemed as purchased by the husband from his own resources.

Consequently, while determining that prima facie the property in question constituted joint Hindu family property, the court expressed the opinion that safeguarding the property from being transferred to a third party was essential.

Accordingly, the high court overturned the ruling of the lower court and granted approval for the injunction application submitted by the son. Furthermore, underscoring that the dispute involved real brothers and was yet to be resolved, it instructed the lower court to expedite the decision on the matter.

Case Title: Saurabh Gupta v. Smt. Archna Gupta And 2 Others