The court clarified property rights between spouses, determining that both contributed to construction, thus modifying the Family Court's decree to reflect shared ownership of the building.

JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the husband, for declaration of title and for prohibitory injunction was decreed by the Family Court declaring his one-half right over the plaint schedule property and the building thereon. The wife, who was the respondent in the original petition is in appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as “husband” and “wife”. According to the husband, the property scheduled to the original petition was purchased by him under Ext.A1 Sale Deed in the name of his wife. At the time of Ext.A1 the husband was working abroad. Though the actual sale consideration was ₹ 80,000/-, only an amount of ₹15,000/- was shown as the sale consideration. After the purchase of the property, a residential house worth ₹ 10 lakhs was constructed in the property. The house was also constructed with the funds of the husband. For construction of the house, as directed by the husband, the wife had availed a loan. The loan was repaid by the husband. The relationship became strained, and the husband filed the original petition seeking for declaration of his title over the property and for injunction.

3. The wife contended that the purchase of property and the construction of the building were utilising her funds. The contention that the funds of the husband were utilised for the above purposes, was denied. It was contended that at the time of marriage she was given one lakh rupees in cash and 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The same were utilised for the purchase of property and for construction of the building. It is further added that, a house loan was also availed by her to supplement funds for construction of the building. Accordingly she prayed for dismissal of the original petition.

4. The Family Court held that there is no evidence to find the entrustment of gold ornaments and ₹ 1 lakh at the time of marriage, as claimed by the wife. It was found that the wife has availed a loan, which was also utilised for construction of the building. A decree was passed declaring equal rights for the husband and wife over the property and the building.

5. The wife is in appeal claiming that the property and the building belongs to her absolutely.

6. We have heard learned counsel Sri.T.K.Vipindas on behalf of the appellant-wife and Sri.Arunkumar.A, the learned counsel for the respondent-husband.

7. It is the specific plea of the wife that, at the time of the marriage an amount of ₹ 1 lakh was paid by way of cheque in the name of the father of the petitioner. It is also the case that at the time of marriage she was given 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her father. It was utilised for purchase of the property and for construction of the residential house. With regard to the payment of ₹1 lakh, it is the case that it was a cheque payment in the name of C.V.S. Nair. The Family Court held that the name of the husband's father is Varagath Sivasankaran Nair and that there is no evidence to show that C.V.S Nair and Sivasankaran Nair are one and the same person. The payment of such amount to C.V.S. Nair is proved through Ext.B4 Bank pass book. The marriage was on 21.01.1996 and the payment as evidenced by Ext.B4 was on 27.11.1995. The circumstances would probabilise the wife's contention with regard to payment of ₹ 1 lakh to the husband's father.

8. With regard to the entrustment of the gold ornaments worth 25 sovereigns, her contention is that the gold ornaments were sold for the purpose of construction of house. However, she is unaware of the jewellery shop where her ornaments were sold. The Family Court noticed that her marriage photo does not reflect her wearing gold. Under the above circumstances we concur with the finding of the Family Court that the claim regarding gold , is not proved.

9. It is the case of the husband