J U D G M E N T

A.Hariprasad, J.

The appellant is challenging the judgment in the final decree proceedings in O.S.No.476 of 1992 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant was the husband of the respondent. They severed their marital relationship by a decree of divorce.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. We have carefully perused the records.

3. Learned counsel contended that the appellant owns

19½ cents of property and a residential building thereon. The property in dispute is a pathway leading to the residential compound of the appellant. 19 ½ cents of land mentioned above exclusively belongs to the appellant. When cordiality subsisted between the appellant and the respondent, he purchased the plaint schedule property in the joint names of the respondent and himself. The disputed property is a narrow strip of land and it was purchased for facilitating access to the residential compound. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the disputed property is being used as a pathway to take vehicles to the residential compound.

4. Later, marital relationship between the appellant and the respondent became