The court reaffirmed that previous judicial findings barred a claim for property ownership due to lack of evidence reflecting full financial contribution.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 21st day of January, 2022 A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This appeal is against the dismissal of the claim made by the appellant over claim 'A' and 'B' schedule properties.

2. The appellant is the legally separated wife of the respondent through the impugned proceedings. She made a composite relief for dissolution of marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act , 1939 and for a declaration of title over the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. The Family Court granted the relief of dissolution, but declined the declaratory relief over the property.

3. The appeal was filed by the appellant through counsel. Thereafter, the counsel relinquished vakkalath. The appellant appeared in person before us. She was offered the assistance of a lawyer. But she refused to have such assistance. The appellant is an educated lady. We heard her at length. We also heard the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The divorce granted by the Family Court has become final. There is no challenge against the same at the instance of the respondent. The appellant, prior to the institution of the present proceedings, filed O.P.No.256/2003 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The above original petition was filed for maintenance and recovery of gold ornaments and money. Ext.B1 is the copy of the said petition. A further prayer was also sought to restrain the respondent from evicting the petitioner from the plaint schedule there in. The plaint 'B' schedule property consists of the residential building. The 'B' schedule property in O.P.No.256/2003 is the 'A' schedule property in the present proceedings. The Family Court partly decreed O.P.No.256/2003 by allowing maintenance, but declined recovery of gold ornaments.

5. The case of the appellant in that proceedings was that 'A' and 'B' schedule properties therein were purchased utilising her gold ornaments. The Family Court found that the respondent had sufficient means to purchase that property. However, the Family Court allowed the appellant to reside in 'B' schedule property therein restraining the respondent from evicting the appellant.

6. The appellant carried the matter in appeal before this Court as Mat.Appeal No.11/2009 . The respondent also challenged the decree in O.P.No.256/2003 in Mat.Appeal No.66/2011. Both were disposed of by a common judgment dated 8/1/2013. Mat.Appeal No.66/2011 was dismissed; Mat.Appeal No.11/2009 filed by the appellant was allowed and she was awarded a decree to recover the monetary value of 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments along with interest, from the respondent.

7. We shall first advert to the claim over 'A'

schedule property. The appellant's case is that the above property was purchased by utilising sale consideration of the property sold by her father as per Ext.A2. Ext.A2 was executed in the month of July 1994. Plaint 'A' schedule property was purchased in December 1995. It is appropriate to refer para.10 of the petition filed by the appellant in O.P.No.256/2003 , (Ext.B1) which reads thus:

10. Since the respondent purchased the plaint schedule properties in his name by using the funds of the Ist petitioner, she is entitled to recover the 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its approximate value of 2 lakhs Rupees and also Rs. 50,000/- given as acharan and Rs. 2 1/2 lakhs given by the Ist petitioner and her father after disposing the property of the Ist petitioner's father. Thus a total amount of Rs.5 lakhs is to be realised from the respondent and his assets.

8. Her claim was precise. The property was purchased by liquidating her 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.2.5 lakhs given by her father after selling the property covered by Ext.A2. She also would say that a sum of Rs.50,000/- given to the respondent at the time of marriage was also utilised for the purchase of the property. In the judgment in O.P.No.256/2003 , the Family Court did not accept this claim made by the appellant. In the appeal (Mat.Appeal.No.11/2