P. Bhavadasan, J.

1. In a legal battle between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law, the mother-in-law succeeded. The suit filed by the daughter-in-law was dismissed, which was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

2. The first plaintiff had married Sebastian, the youngest son of the defendant on 06.09.1998. Two children were born in the wed-lock. It is claimed by the first appellant that at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was given by her family to the family of her husband. It is also stated in the plaint that her late father- in-law was the owner of 'Prakash Gold Covering shop' situated near the Girls' High School, Ernakulam.

3. The defendant is a retired Teacher. Apart from the first plaintiff's husband, the defendant has two other sons and daughters. Her eldest son is running a gold covering business near Mathrubhoomi, Kaloor. It is claimed by the first plaintiff that her husband was having 75% share in the gold covering business and that all the properties standing in the name of the defendant were acquired by her husband in her name, utilising his funds. The first plaintiff's husband namely, Sebastian became mentally sick and the sickness aggravated to such a stage that he caused the death of one of their children. He was prosecuted for the offence under S.302 IPC, but was given the benefit of S.84 IPC. He is now undergoing treatment in a mental hospital.

4. The appellants have no other place to reside, except the plaint schedule premises. It is claimed by the first plaintiff that as per the understanding in the family, the plaint schedule property is to be given to her husband. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- given by her family at the time of marriage was utilised for the maintenance of the said residential building. Initially, i.e, from 30.06.2003 to 30.11.2003, the respondent herein was providing Rs.1,000/- to her and her son Thomas was giving Rs.2,000/- for a period of six months. But, after 30.11.2003, no amounts have been paid to her.

5. The first appellant was surprised to receive Ext.A20 letter, whereby she was asked to vacate from the plaint schedule premises. She replied that she will be rendered homeless, but the defendant and her family members were not willing to provide anything for her and her daughter. She realised that the family members of her husband were taking advantage of the situation and were trying to get rid of her. Apprehending forceful dispossession, the suit was laid.

6. The defendant resisted the suit. It was pointed out by her that the plaintiff was not entitled to any reliefs in the suit. She claimed that the plaint schedule property was purchased by utilising her own funds and disputed that it was purchased utilising the funds of her husband. She also denied receipt of any amount from the family of the first plaintiff at the time of marriage. Prakash Gold Covering business run by her husband was not a family business and after his death, the shop ceased to function. The defendant would say that the first plaintiff was not concerned about her husband and she was only worried about her own welfare. Since the conduct and behaviour of the members of the family of the first plaintiff became unbearable, the defendant and her family members stopped paying any amount to the first plaintiff. It is claimed that the defendant had to make arrangements for the treatment of Sebastian and she needed money for the same. The plaintiff has no manner of right over the suit property. She also laid a counter claim seeking a mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to vacate the premises.

7. The Trial Court raised necessary issues for consideration. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A52 were marked. The defendant examined herself as DW1 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. On a consideration of the materials before it, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the first plaintiff was unable to establish any manner of right over the suit property and therefore, dismissed