The court affirmed that funds from a joint account, particularly those claimed as patrimony, are subject to restitution when wrongfully withdrawn, emphasizing the evidentiary burden on appellants.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellants assail the judgment of the learned Family Court, Thrissur, in OP No.693/2017, since it has directed them to pay the respondent, an amount of Rs.30 lakhs, along with interest at the rate of 6% from 06.07.2014 till the date of realization, finding it to be her patrimony.

2. Sri.Rejit – learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the findings of the learned Family Court are based on no cogent evidence at all, but on mere surmises and conjectures and hence lacks forensic support. He contended that the evidence of RW1 and RW2, namely that of the appellants herein, establishes that no amounts had been received by them from the respondent and that a sum of Rs.30 lakhs was, in fact, used by her for her own benefit, though now been sought to be recovered from them illegally and unlawfully. He prayed that this Appeal be, therefore, allowed.

3. In response, Sri.Thomas George –

learned counsel for the respondent, argued that not only has the factum of the entrustment of Rs.30 lakhs by the father of his client into a joint account of the parties been properly proved, but also the factum of it having been withdrawn by the 1^st appellant with the junction of the 2^nd appellant and used for their purposes. He contended that, in fact, the 2^nd appellant, when she testified as RW2, admitted to Ext.A22 - which is a statement given by her before the Police Inspector at Trichur West Police Station, to the specific effect that an amount of Rs.30 lakhs has been deposited in the joint account of the 1st appellant and the respondent to be then drawn by the 1^st among them through a cheque - however, saying that her signature on it was obtained by the Police by force and that she never made any admission, as recorded therein.

4. Sri.Thomas George then pointed out that, the testimony on record is not merely that of the parties, but also of the Manager of the Bank, as PW7, who produced Ext.X11 account statement, which renders it luculent that a sum of Rs.30 lakhs had been withdrawn by the 1^st appellant through a cheque signed by the respondent. He further showed us that, on the leaf of said cheque, the 1^st appellant had made an endorsement by affixing his signature and writing his name in his own handwriting. He prayed that this Appeal be, therefore, dismissed.

5. We notice that the learned Family Court allowed the parties to trial and that the appellants offered evidence as RW1 and RW2 respectively; while, the respondent cited herself as PW1 and ten others on her side, namely PW2 to PW11. She also marked Exts.A1 to A30 documents in substantiation of her case. The appellants, on the other hand, marked Exts.B1 to B18; while the Court marked Exts.C1 and C2, along with certain third-party exhibits, namely Exts.X1 to X17.

6. We must record upfront that the evidence in this matter comprises of those led by the parties in three other cases between them, tried together; and hence, we confine our consideration only to those documents and testimony which are vital to our consideration herein.

7. It is without doubt that the respondent sought return of her patrimony, saying that it comprises of Rs.30 lakhs, deposited by her father in her account which she held jointly with the 1^st appellant; and which, she alleged, the latter took away on the strength of a cheque issued by her in good faith. She also sought the return of 20 sovereigns of gold, but gave up the said claim, since she says she obtained it from the respondent pending lis.

8. When we evaluate the evidence carefully, it is indubitable that PW1, namely the respondent herei