COMMON JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is the appellant.

2.The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.158 of 2013 before the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli for the relief of specific performance of an agreement dated 21.03.2001 said to have been executed by the defendant. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff had filed A.S.No.56 of 2018 before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli. The learned District Judge concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. As against the concurrent findings, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

S.A(MD).No.109 of 2021

3.The defendant is the appellant.

4.The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.238 of 2010 before the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli for the relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff had filed A.S.No.6 of 2018 before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli. The learned District Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and decreed the suit. As against the same, the defendant had filed the above second appeal.

5.The plaintiff is the appellant.

6.The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.240 of 2013 before the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendant had filed A.S.No.7 of 2018 before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli. The learned District Judge was pleased to reverse the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiff has filed the above second appeal.

Consolidated Pleadings:

7.S.A.(MD).No.108 of 2021 arises out of a suit for specific performance filed by one Padma as against her former husband Veeramani. According to the plaintiff, she got married to the defendant on 26.08.1987. At the time of marriage, the plaintiff was working as a Scientific Assistant Grade-II in a Regional Forensic Centre and the defendant was working as a Senior Inspector in Co-operative Department at Tirunelveli. The plaintiff had further contended that both of them were living together up to April-2003 and thereafter, a matrimonial dispute arose between them.

8.The plaintiff had further contended that the defendant/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli seeking the relief of divorce and the plaintiff/wife had filed H.M.O.P.No. 72 of 2003 for restitution of conjugal rights. After a joint trial, the prayer for divorce was rejected and the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed. As against the same, the defendant/husband had filed H.M.C.M.A.Nos.53 and 54 of 2005 before the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. The learned District Judge was pleased to allow both the appeals on 03.04.2006 and granted divorce between the parties after dismissing the prayer of the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. As against the same, the plaintiff/wife had filed CMSA.Nos.25 and 26 of 2006 before the High Court. The judgment and decree of the District Court were confirmed by the High Court on 13.04.2010.

9.The plaintiff had further contended that the vacant site of the suit schedule property was originally allotted in the name of the defendant by N.G.O. Co-operative Housing Society. Though the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.6,552/- , the said amount was paid only by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had further contended that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as housing loan from the said Society and created a mortgage to the said Society on 08.11.1995 with regard to the suit schedule property.

10.The plaintiff had further contended that the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was insufficient for the construction of the ground floor and hence, the plaintiff has spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from her income and the ground floor was completed in the year 1996. Thereafter, for the const