SUDHARMA Vs. RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the plaintiff in Original Suit No.335 of 2000, on the files of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the aforesaid suit was filed by the appellant herein for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The parties are referred to as in the Original Suit.

(2.) Brief facts of the case can be summarised as follows:

(3.) The defendant filed written-statement opposing the relief claimed against him. But, admitted that the plaintiff is the estranged wife of the defendant. According to him, he had provided half of the sale consideration for purchasing the plaint schedule property. But, the plaintiff and her mother cleverly avoided to include his name in the sale deed. The defendant has been residing in the building in the scheduled property, immediately after its purchase and no release deed has been executed by the mother of the plaintiff. Deed No.1958 of 1992 is a settlement deed, in which no life interest was reserved by the donor. It is not a concession for sacrifice from the mother of the plaintiff. But, she accepted the money from the defendant and he had agreed to execute a settlement deed in favour of himself and the plaintiff. Thus, the settlement deed had been executed and it had come into the effect. The scheduled property is now in the joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant has one half right over the scheduled property. The plaintiff has also the same status, possession, title and other right over the plaint schedule property, as that of the defendant only. With the aforesaid contentions, he prayed for dismissing the Original Suit.