R. Narayana Pisharadi JUDGMENT
R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2014 passed by the Family Court, Thodupuzha in O.P. No. 396/2013.
2. The appellant in Mat. Appeal No. 227/2015 is the husband and the first respondent therein is the wife. The appellant in Mat. A. No. 457/2015 is the wife and the first respondent therein is the husband. The second respondent in both appeals is a licencee of the building in the petition schedule property.
3. As per the order dated 12.09.2018, the name of the second respondent was deleted from the party array in Mat. A. No. 457/2015. It was also submitted at the Bar that the second respondent has vacated the building in the petition schedule property and that he is no more interested in the outcome of the appeals.
4. For the sake of convenience, the appellant and the first respondent in the appeals shall be hereinafter referred to as the husband and the wife or vice versa.
5. The husband filed O.P. No. 396/2013 in the Family Court for granting a decree of declaration of his title over the petition schedule property and also for a declaration that he is the person entitled to receive licence fee from the second respondent. He also sought a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining the wife and the second respondent from committing any act of waste in the petition schedule property and interfering with his possession over that property.
6. The sum and substance of the case of the husband is that the petition schedule property was purchased by him in the name of the wife and that he constructed a multi-storied building in that property by using his own funds and that he is the real owner of the property and the building therein.
7. The wife filed written statement in the original petition denying the material averments therein. She pleaded that the petition schedule property was purchased by her and not by the husband. She asserted that the new building in the petition schedule property was constructed by her and not by the husband. She contended that the first and the second floors of the building were given on licence arrangement to the second respondent by her and not by the husband. She also pleaded that the property was purchased by her using the funds obtained by her from her family. She asserted that the building was constructed by her by availing loan from the bank and that the husband has got no right or title over the petition schedule property and the building therein.
8. During the trial of the case, PW 1 and PW 2 were examined on the side of the husband and Exts. A1 to A14 documents were marked on his side. RW 1 to RW 3 were examined on the side of the wife and Exts. B1 to B10 documents were marked on her side.
9. The Family Court found that the petition schedule property was purchased by using the funds of the husband and that the building in the property was also constructed by the husband using his own funds. But, the Family Court declined to grant a decree of declaration that he has got title over the petition schedule property on the ground that it would affect the welfare of the family. The Family Court granted a decree of declaration that the husband is entitled to receive the monthly licence fee of the first and the second floors of the building from the second respondent. The Family Court also granted a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining the wife and the second respondent from committing any acts of waste in the building in the petition schedule property and causing any interference with the peaceful possession of the building by the husband. Aggrieved by the decree passed against her, the wife has filed Mat. A. No. 457/2015. Aggrieved by the refusal of the Family Court to grant a decree of declaration of title in his favour, the husband has filed Mat. A.........