(1.) THESE Matrimonial Appeals between the same couple are intrinsically intertwined and hence, they were heard jointly. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to in this judgment as 'the wife' and 'the husband'.
(2.) O .P.No.1076 of 2007 is, in fact, a suit filed by the husband mainly seeking for declaration of his exclusive title over plaint 'A' to 'E' schedule properties and for a decree directing the wife, the respondent therein, to assign her share in 'E' schedule property in his name. O.P.No.989 of 2008 was originally filed by the wife as O.P.No.1075 of 2008 before the Family Court, Ernakulam and was later transferred to Family Court, Kottayam and re-numbered as such. It is a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the husband or anybody under him from trespassing into the property scheduled thereunder and committing waste as also from inducting strangers thereon. The property scheduled therein is the same property that was scheduled as 'A' schedule property in O.P.No.1076 of 2007. O.P.Nos.989 of 2008 and 1076 of 2007 were jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment. The former among them was dismissed and in the latter petition it was declared that the husband has got half right in plaint 'A' to 'E' schedule properties and accordingly, a preliminary decree was passed to effect division of plaint 'A' to 'E' schedule properties by metes and bounds and also to allot his half right over the said properties. As per the said common judgment, either of the parties could move for effecting partition and to pass a final decree and the cost of the parties would come out of the estate. Mat. Appeal Nos.766 of 2009 and 805 of 2009 are the appeals filed respectively by the wife and the husband against the judgment and decree in O.P.No.1076 of 2007 and Mat. Appeal No.775 of 2009 is the appeal filed against O.P.No.989 of 2008. O.P.No.1210 of 2009 was filed by the husband for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner husband could not adduce evidence to prove cruelty and willful desertion on the part of the respondent wife. Mat. Appeal No.285 of 2011 is directed against the said judgment.
(3.) AS already noticed, O.P.No.989 of 2008 and O.P.No.1076 of 2007, from which the aforesaid appeals arose, were jointly tried. The husband was examined as PW1 and his witnesses were examined as PWs 2 to 5. The wife was examined as RW1 and her witnesses were examined as RWs2 to 12. On the side of the husband, Exts.A1 to A27 were marked and on the side of the wife Exts.B1 to B69 were marked. X1 and X2 were marked as court exhibits.