Important points:
Appellant also contributed towards construction of the building though there was nothing to establish that the building came into existence solely out of contribution-On re-appreciation of evidence, the opinion expressed by the court below cannot be rejected as unreasonable.

JUDGMENT :

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

1. The appellant challenges the common order dated 30.12.2010, dismissing her claim in O.S. No. 362/2005 for declaration of her absolute title over the building situated in petition ‘A’ schedule property and also mandatory injunction directing the respondents residing in the building to vacate from the premises. The Family court, while declaring that she was the absolute owner of the land and having held that she was entitled for a prohibitory injunction restrained the respondents from causing obstruction to her entry as well as occupying the house for her residence and held that her husband had acquired half right over the building along with her. In fact her husband had filed O.P. No. 129/2008 claiming absolute right over the property as well as the building. But the Family court rejected the claim in respect of the land and declared that he has half right over the building.

2. The appellant/wife alone being aggrieved by the common order, filed Mat. Appeal Nos. 709/2011 and 294/2013 which respectively arise from O.S. No. 362/2005 and O.P. No. 129/2008. Parties are described as shown in Mat. Appeal No. 709/2011 unless otherwise stated.

3. The petitioner/wife married the 1st respondent on 18.04.1989 and two children were born out of the wedlock. After marriage she resided with him in many places as he was employed in Military service and a transferable job. It is contended by the wife that petition ‘A’ schedule property was purchased by her, in her name with her own funds under Ext.A1 sale-deed dated 20.03.1989, a month before her marriage with the 1st respondent. The property was purchased from respondents 2 and 3, who are the parents of the 1st respondent and also his sister. She also expended money for reconstructing the building in petition ‘A’ schedule property. The parents and sister of the 1st respondent are residing in the house with her permission. When she returned to the building in the month of March, 2005 following matrimonial disputes with her husband, the respondents resisted her entry and prevented her from occupying the building for her residence. Hence she filed O.S. No. 362/2005, for a declaration that she is the absolute owner in possession of petition ‘A’ schedule land and building therein. She also sought a mandatory injunction directing eviction of the respondents from the house and for a prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from causing obstruction to her enjoyment of the house as well as the entry into the property.

4. The respondents filed joint objection, denying the title and possession of the appellant. According to them, Ext.A1 sale-deed relied on by the appellant is null and void and did not confer any right or title on her. It was contended that Ext.A1 sale-deed was a sham document which did not take effect, since its execution was intended only to be a security for money borrowed by the 3rd respondent from the father of the appellant. It is stated that the 3rd respondent, who is the father of the 1st respondent had borrowed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from appellant’s father Sri. Ramakrishnan, a few weeks before the marriage and in compliance with the insistence of appellant and her father, Ext.A1 sale-deed happened to be executed in her name by the respondents 2 and 3 along with their daughter upon a specific undertaking between parties that the property would be re-conveyed immediately on discharging the amount borrowed by the 3rd respondent. On 04.05.1989, Sri. Ramakrishnan died and later, the loan liability was discharged also. Since appellant became part of the family of respondents after her marriage, they did not insist upon re-conveyance of the property. They further contended that the fund with which the building was constructed exclusively belonged to the 1st respondent and therefore, appellant is not entitled to get declaration of title either over the land or building. She did not have any source to raise any funds of her own.

5. In O.P. No. 129/2