# Flat in Wife's and Mother-in-Law's Name: Delhi HC By Saurabh Garg, founder·6 min read·Published 2026-09-25 **Short answer:** On 24 September 2026 the Delhi High Court dismissed a husband's appeal over a Malviya Nagar flat he said he paid for in 2007 but bought in the names of his wife and mother-in-law. The court held the benami law bars his claim: the exception for property bought in a spouse's name did not help, because the money came from joint accounts, a firm in the wife's name and a loan in the mother-in-law's name. The suit was also time-barred, and barred by the dismissal of his earlier suit in 2013. # A Flat Bought in the Wife's and Mother-in-Law's Names Stays Theirs, the Delhi High Court Said on 24 September **A Delhi man said he paid Rs 27,00,000 for a Malviya Nagar flat in 2007 and put it in the names of his wife and his mother-in-law. After the marriage broke down they sold it. On 24 September 2026 the Delhi High Court held that his claim to be the real owner is barred by the benami law, and that the sale to a third buyer stands.** ## The case The judgment is *Surya Deep Garg @ Suraj Garg v. Neha Garg & Others*, RFA 674/2026, Delhi High Court, CNR DLHC010306472026, decided by Neena Bansal Krishna J. It was reserved on 17 July 2026 and pronounced and uploaded on 24 September 2026, and runs to 27 pages. It is an appeal against a District Judge's judgment of 11 April 2026 in CS DJ No. 580/2023, which rejected the husband's suit at the outset under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts come from the husband's own plaint, at paragraphs 2 to 35: - The couple married on 2 December 2001. - The flat is 90/80-AB, First Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. The sale deed of 20 April 2007, for Rs 27,00,000, was registered in the names of the wife and her mother. - The husband said the mother-in-law was added because part of the price came from a loan taken in her name at a government employee's lower rate, which he said he repaid. - The couple separated in 2009. His first suit over the flat, CS(OS) No. 2351/2010, was dismissed in default in 2013, and his application to restore it was rejected on 27 April 2015. - The wife and mother-in-law sold the flat to a third party by a registered sale deed of 9 January 2018. He filed the present suit in 2023. ## Where the money came from The husband set out the Rs 27,00,000 in four parts, listed at paragraph 95. The court took each in turn at paragraphs 97 to 99: - **Rs 7,00,000 and Rs 3,85,000** came from the joint account of husband and wife. Paragraph 97: "Both the Account holders have equal rights over the funds deposited in the joint Account." He could not claim that money as his alone. - **Rs 5,85,000** came from the account of a proprietorship firm that, on his own case, was opened in the wife's name. Paragraph 98: those funds "cannot be treated as the exclusive funds of the Appellant." - **Rs 10,30,000** was a loan in the mother-in-law's name. Paragraph 99: his claim that he repaid it in cash and transfers was "not supported by any cogent documentary proof." ## What the court held The benami bar applies. Paragraph 88, relying on the Supreme Court in *Manjula v. D.A. Srinivas*, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 831: section 4(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 bars a suit by a person claiming to be the real owner of property held benami. Paragraphs 90 and 91: the definition in section 2(9), as substituted in 2016, governs a 2007 purchase, because *Manjula* held those exceptions retrospective. The spouse exception did not apply. Section 2(9)(A)(iii) excludes property bought in the name of a spouse or child where the price is paid "out of the known sources of the individual." Paragraph 94 notes the deed was in the name of the mother-in-law as well as the wife. Paragraphs 101 and 102: the husband failed to show the price came from his own known sources, so the exception is not attracted and his claim falls within section 4(1). Out of time. Paragraph 76: the challenge to the 2007 deed was filed in 2023, "after 16 years, which is patently barred by limitation." Paragraph 77: his own pleadings show he knew of the deed from the start. The 2018 sale did not give him a fresh start. The earlier suit. Paragraphs 80 to 85: a dismissal in default is not a decision on the merits, but Order IX Rule 9 bars a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The challenge to the 2018 deed depends on the challenge to the 2007 deed, so both suits rest on the same cause. The third buyer. Paragraph 107: once the challenge to the 2007 deed fails, the wife and mother-in-law "had an absolute right to deal with the property", and the 2018 sale cannot be challenged by him. Paragraph 108: the appeal is dismissed. ## What it means for an NRI family NRIs often buy in India through a relative's name, pay from a joint account, or route part of the price through a loan in a family member's name. This judgment shows how a court reads those choices years later. The deed names the owner. The spouse and child exception depends on showing the money came from the buyer's own known sources, and this court did not treat money in a joint account, a firm in the wife's name, or a loan in the mother-in-law's name as his own. Cash repayments without receipts or bank records did not count. Two limits. This is one judge's decision on a suit rejected at the threshold, on the husband's own pleadings. And paragraphs 104 and 105 add, citing *Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh*, (2007) 6 SCC 100, that source of money is relevant but not decisive; intention is read from all the circumstances. For the rule on buying in a parent's or relative's name, read our guide on [buying property in a parent's name and the benami law](/guides/nri-buying-property-in-parents-name-benami). For the title checks before any purchase, see the [legal due diligence guide](/guides/legal-due-diligence-nri-buying-property). A family's own position belongs with a lawyer who can read its deeds and bank records. ## FAQ **Can a husband claim a flat he paid for but bought in his wife's name?** Only if the transaction falls outside the benami definition. Section 2(9)(A)(iii) excludes a purchase in a spouse's name paid from the buyer's known sources. In this case the Delhi High Court held the husband had not shown that, and the deed also named his mother-in-law. **Does money from a joint account count as the buyer's own?** Not in this case. Paragraph 97 held that both holders have equal rights over a joint account, so the husband could not claim those funds as his alone. **Does the 2016 benami amendment apply to a purchase made in 2007?** The court held it does for the definition in section 2(9), following the Supreme Court in *Manjula v. D.A. Srinivas*, which treated those exceptions as retrospective. **Why was the suit also out of time?** The husband challenged a 2007 sale deed in 2023. Paragraphs 76 and 77 held his own pleadings showed he knew of the deed from the start, so a challenge 16 years later was barred, and the 2018 resale did not restart the clock. **What happened to the later sale to an outside buyer?** It stands. Paragraph 107 held that once the challenge to the 2007 deed failed, the recorded owners could sell, and the husband could not challenge the 2018 sale. *66 MG Road newsdesk* ## Sources - *Surya Deep Garg @ Suraj Garg v. Neha Garg & Others*, RFA 674/2026, Delhi High Court, Neena Bansal Krishna J, pronounced 24 September 2026, 27 pages, CNR DLHC010306472026. The Court's own signed PDF was downloaded by our desk on 25 September 2026, HTTP 200, 895,675 bytes, sha256 d5820050bfee746229266a15429a06a4928cd813c6dec0d67d668eb2a8bf30ee, and read in full: [https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/NBK24092026RFA6742026_192846.pdf](https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/NBK24092026RFA6742026_192846.pdf) - *Manjula v. D.A. Srinivas*, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 831, and *Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh*, (2007) 6 SCC 100, as the judgment above summarises them at paragraphs 88 to 90 and 104. We did not open those reports ourselves. About the author: [Saurabh Garg](/about) Saurabh Garg has run the venture studio C4E for twenty years. He founded 66 MG Road in 2026, reads every proposal request, and replies within one business day. [saurabhgarg.com](https://saurabhgarg.com) · [@saurabh](https://x.com/saurabh) · [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/saurabhgarg) Information on this page is as on 2026-09-25. Rules, rates, deadlines and government portals change without notice, so verify against the official source before you act. This page is for information only. It is not tax or legal advice, and it is not a substitute for a qualified adviser who knows your position. ## Related guides - [Buying Property in a Parent's Name as an NRI: The Benami Trap](/guides/nri-buying-property-in-parents-name-benami) - [Legal Due Diligence Before an NRI Buys Property in India](/guides/legal-due-diligence-nri-buying-property) - [NRIs Buying Property in India: The Rules, the Money, the Paperwork](/guides/nri-buying-property-in-india) - [A Widow's Share Became Hers Outright Without a Partition, the Supreme Court Said on 22 September](/guides/nri-hindu-widow-share-absolute-without-partition-supreme-court-sep-2026) ## Compare and cost - [The NRI Property Management Companies in India: A Comparison You Can Check](/guides/best-nri-property-management-companies-india) - [What NRI Property Management Costs in India: The Four Models and What Hides in Each](/guides/nri-property-management-cost-india) - [NoBroker NRI Services Review: What the Pages Promise and What They Leave Out](/guides/nobroker-nri-services-review) --- Source: [https://66mgroad.com/guides/nri-benami-flat-wife-mother-in-law-name-delhi-high-court-sep-2026](https://66mgroad.com/guides/nri-benami-flat-wife-mother-in-law-name-delhi-high-court-sep-2026) · 66 MG Road. Full LLM brief: https://66mgroad.com/llms.txt