Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, J
Wife – Appellant
Versus
Husband – Respondent
Mat.Appeal 116/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.P. Shamsuddin
For the Respondents: Shri.T.H. Abdul Azeez
The court upheld the necessity of evidence in claims for property and financial recovery, confirming the husband's title while dismissing the wife's unsupported claims.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act - Proviso to Section 34 - Family Law - Title declaration and claims for money - Husband sought declaration of title over property purchased in wife's name, while wife challenged the decree of title and sought recovery of gold and money - Family Court granted title but dismissed money claims for lack of evidence. (Paras 1-17)
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - The husband successfully proved ownership of property, while the wife failed to substantiate claims for gold and money, leading to dismissal of her claims. (Paras 9, 11, 12, 14, 17)
Facts of the case:
The marriage occurred in 1981, with two children born. The husband claimed property purchased in wife's name was funded by him, while the wife alleged claims for gold and money provided at marriage. The Family Court found in favor of the husband regarding title but dismissed the wife's monetary claims due to insufficient evidence.
Findings of Court:
The Family Court's decree on title was justified; the wife's claims lacked evidence and were dismissed.
Issues: The court addressed the validity of the husband’s title claim and the wife's claims for money and gold.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of evidence to support claims, confirming the husband's ownership based on the absence of proof from the wife regarding her claims.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the family dispute and claims made. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's analysis of evidence and claims by both parties. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. final ruling affirming the family court's decree. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
Mat Appeal No.42 of 2014 arises from O.P.No.268 of 2012. The original petition was filed by the husband against the wife, seeking a declaration of his title over the plaint A schedule property having an extent of 5.85 cents and for recovery of money under various heads. The Family Court granted a decree for declaration of title, but dismissed the claim for money. The wife is in appeal challenging the decree of declaration.
2. Mat.Appeal No.244 of 2014 is filed by the husband challenging that part of the decree in O.P.No.268 of 2012, which declined the claim for money.
3. Mat.Appeal No.116 of 2014 is filed by the wife challenging the dismissal of her original petition, O.P.No.1405 of 2010, which was filed seeking to set aside Ext.A2 Settlement Deed and for recovery of gold and money.
4. The marriage between the parties was on 31.08.1981. Two children were born in the wedlock. Since the year 1970, her husband was abroad at Gulf countries. The parties separated in the year 2010 that is, after almost 30 years.
5. According to the husband, the plaint A schedule property in O.P.No.268 of 2012 was purchased by him in the name of the wife under Ext.B1 Sale Deed, with the funds provided by him. The title over the property vests with him. He seeks for a declaration of his title over the property. The plaint B schedule is claimed to be money with the wife, having been obtained by the sale of two items of properties belonging to the husband and also the loan amount availed by the husband and handed over to the wife. Under the plaint C schedule, the husband claims the value of movables and gold ornaments provided to the wife.
6. The claim of the wife is for 80 sovereigns of gold and for Rs.5,00,000/- alleged to be entrusted at the time of marriage. A further relief is also sought seeking to set aside Ext.A2 Settlement Deed executed by the husband in favour of their son.
7. With regard to O.P.No.268 of 2012, the Family Court granted a decree of declaration of title. The claim for money was dismissed for lack of evidence. O.P.No.1405 of 2010 was dismissed.
8. We have heard Shri.P. Shamsuddin, the learned counsel for the wife and Shri.T.H. Abdul Azeez, the learned counsel for the husband.
9. The claim of the husband is that the plaint A schedule property in O.P.No.268 of 2012, though purchased under Ext.B1 Sale Deed in the name of wife, the entire consideration was provided by him. Admittedly, the husband was employed in Gulf countries since the year 1970. The wife is unemployed and does not have any source of income. It is the claim of the wife that her father was a textile merchant and had provided funds to her for the purchase of the property. As was noticed, the marriage was in the year 1981. The purchase of the property under Ext.B1 is in the year 2006. No special reason is assigned why after so many years of marriage the father provided funds to the wife to purchase Ext.B1 property. So also, there is no evidence to prove that any funds were so provided by the father. The circumstances probabilise that the consideration for Ext.B1 Sale Deed proceeded by the husband. The finding of the family Court is justified.
10. The learned counsel for the wife contends that, in the light of the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act , a mere suit for declaration of title could not be maintained and the husband ought to have sought for the relief for recovery of possession. It is the definite case of the husband that the property absolutely belongs to him and is in his possession and enjoyment. It is his further case that the building in the property has been leased out and that the tenants are in occupation. The factum of lease is evidenced by Ext.B8 rent agreement.
