Delhi High Court’s decision: Even ancestral or inherited property is not safe from money laundering attachment
The Delhi High Court has clarified that ancestral or inherited property is not automatically safe from attachment action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, in its important judgment, observed that there is no exception in the law for ancestral or inherited properties in attachment proceedings in money laundering cases. The court said that if the source of any property is found suspicious, be it inheritance or ancestral property, the investigating agencies have the right to take action.
Delhi High Court gave an important verdict on the appeal filed against the 2025 order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The appeal upheld the confirmation of temporary attachment of the property located at 255, Sainik Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The appellant argued that this property was purchased by his father in 1991 with his own income and he himself did not contribute any money to purchase it. He also said that the property was inherited by him through ancestral rights, hence it should be freed from attachment. However, the Division Bench of Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja clarified that there is no exception for inheritance or ancestral property in the PMLA.
In this case the appellant claimed that the property situated at 255, Sainik Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi was never purchased by him and it was purchased by his father in 1991 in their joint names from his personal income. Therefore, they argued that it could not be confiscated.
The appeal was filed under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), challenging the Appellate Tribunal’s order dated November 27, 2025. The tribunal had confirmed the provisional attachment order issued on July 28, 2017.
However, the Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that the contention of the appellant that ancestral property cannot be attached unless it was purchased with illegally acquired money is wrong. The High Court clarified that under PMLA, the source of property is a matter of investigation and ancestral property also comes under the purview of confiscation action.
The Delhi High Court, in its order on February 16, clarified that ancestral or inherited property is not automatically exempt from attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja said, “The plea of the property being ancestral does not automatically confer immunity from attachment proceedings under the PMLA. There is no exception in this law for ancestral or inherited properties.” In this case the Enforcement Directorate (ED) stated that the money earned from crime by the appellant was remitted in the form of foreign currency and hence was not available. The ED also told the High Court that the existing assets were attached under PMLA considering their value equivalent to the proceeds of crime.
Follow the LALLURAM.COM MP channel on WhatsApp
Comments are closed.