NEW DELHI<\/em>:<\/strong> The Supreme Court<\/a><\/strong> has clarified thatproperty purchased by a husband in his wife\u2019s name cannot automatically be treated as the husband\u2019s property<\/strong> merely because he paid the purchase price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh<\/strong> delivered the ruling. The appeal challenged a February 7, 2020 judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court<\/a><\/strong>. The Supreme Court noted that the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and High Court had taken different views on the property dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The dispute concerned land purchased in 1959 by Mattus Anthony for \u20b9300 in the names of his two wives, Filomina and Shyam Bai<\/strong>. Filomina had three children, while Shyam Bai had one son, John Anthony. All parties were Christians, and there was no dispute regarding the marriages or the children\u2019s parentage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Filomina died in 1985, Mattus Anthony died in 1991 and Shyam Bai died in 2000. John Anthony had predeceased his mother in 1985. In 2002, John Anthony\u2019s legal heirs sold 888 square feet, claimed as half of the total property, to another purchaser. Filomina\u2019s children then filed a civil suit challenging the sale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Trial Court declared the sale deed ineffective and granted shares to the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court reversed that finding and held that the legal heirs of each wife were entitled to their respective mother\u2019s half share. The High Court later treated both widows together as entitled to one-third of the property and Filomina\u2019s children as entitled to the remaining two-thirds as lineal descendants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n