Shaffique, J.

1. The appeal is filed by the 1st respondent in OP No.424/2005 of the Family Court, Kottayam challenging the judgment by which the Original Petition had been decreed declaring the 1st respondent herein as the owner and title holder of the petition schedule property and further declaring that Ext.A2 settlement deed is not binding on her. A permanent prohibitory injunction is also granted restraining the appellant and the 2nd respondent from trespassing into the property or alienating the same.

2. The facts involved in the present appeal as borne out from the pleadings are as under. For easy reference, the parties are described as shown in the Original Petition. The petitioner and the 1st respondent got married on 1/11/1987 following Christian rites and ceremonies. 3 children were born to them in the wedlock. The 1st respondent is a permanent resident of United States of America and he has got citizenship. The contention urged by the petitioner is that 1st respondent deserted her and the children. An attempt was made by the 1st respondent in the year 1999 to sell the petition schedule property. According to the petitioner, the said property was purchased with the amount of Rs.50,000/- entrusted to the 1st respondent as patrimony and by sale of 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments. In order to save stamp duty, the property was styled as a gift deed and she was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. In the year 2005, when she attempted to remit basic tax, it was understood that the property had been mutated in the name of another person. On enquiry, she understood that the property was assigned in the name of 2nd respondent based on a Power of Attorney dated 25/5/2002. She alleged that she has not executed the Power of Attorney and the signature in the Power of Attorney does not belong to her and that the document was created fraudulently. She contended that though she was in America during the relevant time, she had not gone to a notary public nor she has executed any document. It was therefore contended that the gift deed bearing No.1597/2004 based on the Power of Attorney is not valid, and hence she sought for declaration that the documents were invalid.

3. 1st respondent contended that he was working in America since 1984 and his entire earnings were appropriated by the petitioner. She accompanied the 1st respondent to America in 1989 and returned in the year 1991. He denied the fact that the property was purchased with the fund of the petitioner's brother. The petitioner was living with him in America and she gave birth to the elder child on 22/9/1990, the 2nd child was born in India on 15/10/1991 and the 3rd child on 20/11/1992. He contended that she executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd respondent with an intention to transfer the property to the first respondent. The reason for executing the Power of Attorney was that her brother will not permit her to go to the Sub Registry Office to execute the document. It is stated that the 2nd respondent is their family friend and the Power of Attorney has been attested before a Notary Public in America. It is based on the said Power of Attorney that the document was executed. He denied any fabrication of document or fraud being played. The 2nd respondent also filed objection. He admitted that he had executed the gift deed based on a Power of Attorney.

4. Before the Court below, the petitioner was examined as PW1. Respondents were examined as RW1 and RW2. Petitioner relied upon Exts.A1 to A5 and respondents relied upon Exts.B1 to B5. Ext.A1 is the sale deed under which the property was purchased in the name of the petitioner. Ext.A2 is the gift deed by which the property was settled in favour of the first respondent. Ext.A3 is the Power of Attorney on the basis of which Ext.A2 document was created. The Court below on a consideration of the entire factual situation and the evidence decreed the petition as sought for.

5. While impugning the aforesaid