The burden of proof lies on the party alleging a fact, and the court may allow the production of additional evidence to establish the claims.

Ramakrishnan, J.

The counter petitioner in OP No.635/2009 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant herein. The Original Petition was filed by the respondent for a declaration that she is having title, right and possession over petition schedule property and the house building and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant husband from causing any mischief in the plaint schedule property. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner and respondent are husband and wife and the respondent has contracted an inter caste marriage with the petitioner on 11/4/1977 and the same was registered at the Sub Registrar's Office Peerumedu. They resided together as husband and wife at Vandiperiyar and later they resided in the petition schedule property. The property was purchased with the funds entrusted to the husband in his name. They resided in the house till 30/5/1995 and three male children were born to them in that wedlock. The appellant had developed an illicit connection with one Sreekala, daughter of Gnanamma, Karuvatta, Alleppey District. In order to continue that illicit relationship, he deserted her and withdrawn from the relationship after having matrimonial relationship for 20 years. The respondent was employed in the Health Department. The appellant was not having any source of income. In view of her employment, herself and her husband were living at Vandiperiyar adjacent to her work place. On 10th May, 1982, the appellant has purchased the petition schedule property and the building by virtue of sale deed No.814/1982 by utilising the amount raised by the respondent from her savings from her employment. However, the appellant got the document executed in his name in a deceitful manner. The entire sale consideration was paid out of the funds of the respondent. The building was constructed with her funds. When the appellant tried to evict her from the property, she filed OS No.302/95 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and obtained an injunction against the appellant from forcibly evicting her from the property. Since the appellant was making unnecessary claim over the plaint schedule property, the respondent was compelled to file the suit for the above relief.

2. The appellant filed written statement contending that the petition is not maintainable, she has no interest in the petition schedule property, there was no valid marriage between the parties and the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The very same petitioner filed OS No.302/1995 before the same Court and the Court has entered into a finding that there was no valid marriage. So the present petition is not maintainable. He has got his own income, he purchased the property by his own income, he had no illicit relationship with any lady as claimed and the respondent is not entitled to any relief as she has no title or possession over the plaint schedule property. So, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. Petitioner in court below was examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on her side. Respondent in the court below was examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on his side. After considering the evidence, the Court below came to the conclusion that respondent has absolute right, title, ownership and possession over the petition schedule property and decreed the case as prayed for. Dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal is filed.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional appellants as per order in IA No.1603/2014. The appellant also filed IA No.1090/2012 before this Court for reception of additional documents where he had produced documents to show that he is having business and he is having fund in his account. Having considered the averments in the petition, we allowed the application and received the documents invoking Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. subject to its reliability and admissibility to be considered