Property standing in wife name cannot be attached to recover dues from husband 

2) The fact that the Benami Act saves a purchase in favour of the wife by the husband, from the prohibition contained in the statute, does not at all aid your case  unless it is established that the transaction was not for the benefit of the wife. There cannot be any control conferred on the husband merely for reason of the purchase being made in the name of the wife, with the money of the husband.

3) there is no vested right in plaintiff  to take over any of the properties which are in the name of the dependants of the defaulter and it was categorically found that the statute does not permit such a course of action.

- Where a person buys a property with his own money but in the name of another person without any intention to benefit such other person, the transaction is called benami. The transferee holds the property for the benefit of the person who has contributed the purchase money, and he is the real owner.

- Further , it is legally permissible for a person to purchase an immovable property in the name of his spouse from his known sources but the property will be person purchasing the property and not of the wife in whose name title deeds exist.

- Hence, the benami properties can be attatched , even its is in the name of wife, because as per law, husband is the real owner of the property and not the wife. 

Delhi high court judgement in the case of  Manoj Arora versus Mamta Arora

1. yes it is the correct Position of the law that the benami properties can be attached and you have been rightly advised by your advocate.

Regards

If the property was bought by you by black money and then its its owners were tour people then you have to admit and confess that you earned by illegal means. Then a case would be registered against you first and then the properties would be attached.

Regards 

Now under the benami transaction Act you can buy property in name of spouse and child. It's not a benami transaction if the same is bought by known sources

First, you need to prove in the court how that property is benami and later to prove it was purchased from husband's earning and that to from your transaction or money all money show bank transactions of both accounts etc. Than its possible of winning the case in your favor.

And it can be proved in the court. I can provide your citations regarding your similar issue.

Since the property may not have shown as gift to wife, benaamdaar is actual owner.

statutory presumption contained in sub-section (2) of Section 3 that unless a contrary is proved that the purchase of property by the person in the name of his wife or his unmarried daughter, as the case may be, was for her benefit.

2)In any event, for the Plaintiff to succeed, he should prove that the properties concerned had not been purchased by the father (the husband of the 1st Defendant) for the benefit or the welfare of the wife even though it may be shown that the consideration for the purchase of the properties had been paid by her husband.”

3) property purchased by husband in name of wife is not Benami property 

The above position is correct as stated by me

The property bought on wife's name b y the husband canot be treated as benami transaction, hence it cannot be attached for the husband's debts.

If you cannot find any other property seeking attachment before judgment, then you may have to expedite the trial process of the recovery suit.

Thus, it is a good lesson to you.

Once the case was filed for recovery along with an application seeking attachment before judgment, you should have concentrated on the application for ABJ first and should have taken immediate action on the same before the court is proceeding with the main suit 

In the case of an application filed for attachment before judgment in a suit for recovery of money, the property to be attached and which is the subject matter of such application is not the property involved in the suit and it cannot be termed as the suit property as the suit is one for recovery of money.

An attachment before judgment is in the nature of an interlocutory order. In Gurunadha Rao v. Gamini Krishnayya, a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that to be valid an attachment must be specific and clear in its purport. In Shivaraya and Others Vs. Sharnappa and Others [AIR 1968 Mysore 283], the Hon’ble Single Judge followed Bankim Chandra and Others’ case and Tavvala Veeraswamy’s case which considered such interlocutory orders to have been passed in exercise of the Court’s ancillary powers. His Lordship Dawson-Miller C. J. stated as follows :”The power given to the Court to attach a deft.’s property before judgment, is never meant to be exercised lightly or without clear proof of the existence of the mischief aimed at in the rule.

A defendant is not debarred from dealing with his property merely because a suit is filed or about to be filed against him. Shifting of business from one premises to another premises or removal of machinery to another premises by itself is not a ground for granting attachment before judgement. A plaintiff should show, prima facie, that his claim is bona fide and valid and also satisfy the Court that the defendant is about to remove or dispose of the whole or part of his property, with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, before power is exercised under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. Courts should also keep in view the principles relating to grant of attachment before judgment (see Prem Raj Mundra v. Md.Maneck Gazi, AIR (1951) Cal 156, for a clear summary of the principles.)