P.D. Rajan, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor in O.P.No.401 of 2002. Appellant, who filed the O.P, is the husband and the respondents are his wife and son respectively. The above O.P was filed for declaration of title over item No.1 of plaint schedule property, for permanent prohibitory injunction and other reliefs.

2. The brief facts that gave rise to this appeal are as follows. Petitioner is the owner in possession of plaint schedule item No.1 property by virtue of sale deed No.754/2008 of SRO, Ramapuram and he constructed a building therein in the year 1971. Plaint schedule property item No.2 was purchased by him by virtue of sale deed No.1825/67 dated 5.2.1967 of SRO, Ramapuram and he is in possession of both properties. Respondents 1 and 2 trespassed into item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and are residing in the building therein for the last three years. The second respondent is a drunkard, who had attempted to inflict bodily injury upon the petitioner and hence the petitioner is now residing in a rented building at Pala. The petitioner has no other property or source of income and hence, he demanded the respondents to shift their residence from item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, but they not only refused to do so, but also threatened him and also threatened that they will cause damage and commit waste in the property by cutting trees. In the circumstances, petitioner approached the court below for declaration of his title over item No.1 property and to issue a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from entering into the property and taking income or commit any damages thereon and also to evict them from that property.

3. Both respondents resisted the petition by filing a detailed written objection. They contended that the building in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property was constructed with the funds raised by the first respondent by selling her gold ornaments. They also argued that they are residing in the property since 1995 and denied the allegation of trespass. According to them, both properties are lying as a compact plot and it is difficult to identify it. They alleged that the petitioner is a drunkard and created huge financial debt to the family, which was discharged by the first respondent and her daughter, Sonia by pledging her property and that when he created more problems, they resisted and that it was in such circumstances, he filed the O.P. According to them, there was no threat or danger to the life of the petitioner. First respondent made all improvements in the property and petitioner left the house in the year 2000 and they are in joint possession of the property and enjoying it. They never obstructed the petitioner from taking income or had any intention to commit any waste in the property or the building and hence they prayed to dismiss the application.

4. In the lower court, O.P.No.401 of 2002 was tried jointly with O.P.No.515 of 2000, filed by the respondents and evidence was recorded in O.P.No.515 of 2000. The evidence consists of oral testimony of Pws 1 to 3 and RW1 and Exts.A1 to A21 and Ext.B1 to B10 were marked.

5. Trial court, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed O.P.No.515 of 2000 and partly allowed O.P.No.401 of 2002 by declaring petitioner's title and possession over item No.1 schedule property and the building therein. Permanent Prohibitory injunction was granted restraining respondents 1 and 2 from committing damage to the building or cutting and removing trees and committing waste therein and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. But the prayer for eviction of respondents 1 and 2 was disallowed. Aggrieved by this finding, the husband who filed O.P.No.401 of 2002, has preferred this appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Family Court having declared his title and possession over