J U D G M E N T

Sophy Thomas, J.

Against dismissal of O.P No.630 of 2013 on the file of Family Court, Ernakulam, the appellants/petitioners 1 and 3 preferred this appeal.

2. The short facts necessary for the appeal could be stated as follows:

The appellants and the 2nd respondent are the wife and daughters of the 1st respondent. The marriage between the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent was solemnised on 18.09.1983 at Our Lady of Mercy Church, Mulavukadu. The husband was employed in Tata Oil Mills in Stores Department, at the time of marriage. He was suffering from mental illness and he was admitted and treated at Kusumagiri Hospital, Kakkanad even prior to the marriage. He continued his abnormal behaviour even after the marriage. She was not able to continue in her matrimonial home, since her mother-in-law also was a mental patient. So, she took initiative to purchase a house plot measuring 5.42 cents and the lion share of its consideration was arranged by selling away her 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Though the sale deed was registered in the name of the husband, as she expended money for that transaction, she was the real owner of that property. That property is scheduled as 'A' schedule in the O.P. With the assistance of her close relatives and by availing a housing loan, a small house was built up in that property, and the appellants and respondents shifted residence to that house, in June 1988. Their son Antony Shijay D’Silva got employment as a Quality Analyst in Slavoni Company, Kulalambur, Malaysia in the year 2005. He sent substantial amounts of his salary to the 1st respondent for the sake of family, and persuaded his parents to purchase another piece of land. Thus six cents of land in resurvey No.189/9 at Mulavukadu village was purchased for the family in the name of the 1st respondent, and the entire sale consideration was paid by the son. That property is scheduled as ‘B’ schedule in the O.P. Since the

1st respondent tried to sell away plaint A and B schedule properties after evicting the appellants, they filed the above O.P for declaration and injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory. The declaration prayed for is to the effect that, the 1st appellant and her son are the real and rightful owners in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties, and the 1st respondent is only a name lender. The prohibitory injunction is to restrain the 1st respondent and his men from interfering with the possession, use and enjoyment of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties by the appellants. The mandatory injunction relief is for incorporating the name of the 1st appellant in the sale deed of 'A' schedule property, and the name of her son Antony Shijay D’Silva in the sale deed of B schedule property.

3. The 1st respondent vehemently opposed the reliefs claimed in the O.P, and according to him, with his own hard earned money, he purchased plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties in his own name, and the 1st appellant or her son has no right, title or interest over any of those properties. The 1st appellant/ wife belonged to a very poor family and she had no source of income to purchase 'A' schedule property. He never received any money from the 1st appellant in connection with the marriage. He purchased 'B' schedule property even before his son obtained a job in Malaysia. Though his children are well placed, they are not looking after him and in order to meet his financial needs, he may have to either mortgage plaint schedule properties or sell at least one of the plaint schedule properties. The appellants filed the O.P to prevent him from selling the properties, for which they have no right whatsoever.

4. On formulating necessary issues by the Family Court, the parties went on trial. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A25 series were marked from the side of the appellants/petitioners. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked from the side of the respondent.

5. We are called upon for a reappraisal of the fact