Claims for property ownership must be consistent and supported by evidence; otherwise, they may be barred by limitation.

J U D G M E N T

Sathish Ninan, J.

The Original Petition filed by the husband against the wife, seeking declaration of his title over the property and for a direction to execute a registered conveyance in his favour in respect of the property and for prohibitory injunction against creating encumbrance, was decreed by the Family Court. The wife is in appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the O.P, the respondent herein being “the petitioner”, and the appellant herein being “the respondent”.

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.06.1993. Two children were born in the wedlock. The petitioner was employed abroad even prior to the marriage. According to the petitioner, with his funds, a property was purchased in the joint names of the petitioner and his father as per Sale Deed No.3441/1993. After the marriage, to enable the petitioner to construct a residence, the rights of the father over the property was conveyed in favour of the petitioner as per document No.3535/1994. Subsequently, the property was sold while he was abroad, through his wife acting as his power of attorney holder, as per registered Power of Attorney No. 7492/1999 and Sale Deed No.1428 of 1999. Thereafter, utilising the sale consideration and the amounts sent by the petitioner, Sale Deed 2030 of 1999 was obtained in the names of the petitioner and the respondent.

4. In the meantime there arose some illicit relationship between the respondent and one Ashraf. Subsequently as per Sale Deed No.664 of 2005, the said property was sold off and another property was purchased as per Ext.A4 Sale Deed No.1583 of 2005 utilising the sale consideration and amounts sent by the petitioner from abroad. Subsequently as per Ext.A5 Sale Deed No.2782 of 2005, the plaint schedule property was also purchased. The consideration for Ext.A5, amounting to ₹ 3 lakhs, was sent by the petitioner from abroad. The petitioner was under the bona fide belief that both Exts.A4 and A5 Sale Deeds were acquired in his name.

5. However, in the year 2006 when he came to his native place it was realised that both the sale deeds were taken by the respondent in her name. He was also convinced about the illicit relationship between the respondent and the said Ashraf. The petitioner insisted that the respondent should execute a conveyance in respect of both the properties in his name. Thereupon the property covered under Ext.A4 Sale Deed was conveyed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner.

6. With regard to the plaint schedule property covered under Ext.A5 Sale Deed, the petitioner was told that there was a liability over the property. Thereupon the petitioner agreed that he will go abroad and send the amounts required to clear the liability and thereafter an assignment deed is to be executed conveying the property in the name of the petitioner. It was so agreed by the respondent. Believing the same the petitioner went abroad and sent sufficient amounts to the respondent to clear off the liabilities. However, in 2011 when he was returned from abroad he realised that the respondent has not executed assignment deed in favour of the petitioner as was agreed. The relationship got strained leading to various litigations between the parties including the present original petition.

7. Respondent denied the allegations. She alleged that her brothers were employed abroad and Ext.A5 property was purchased with their financial assistance. The petitioner's averment that the amounts were being sent by the petitioner from abroad was denied. It was alleged that the respondent was not taking care of the petitioner and her children and that it was her brothers who were providing necessary funds. The alleged illicit relationship was denied.

8. The Family Court held that Ext.A5 property was purchased utilising the funds of the petitioner. Accordingly it was declared that the petitioner is the owner of the property. Further, the respondent was directed