The companycurrent decrees passed by the companyrts below were assailed before the High Court.
The High Court was of the view that even if the appellant had obtained a decree for maintenance against the husband, the decree passed in the case for recovery of possession does number in any way, defeat the right of the wife to enforce the charge.
A 1 sale deed utilising his own funds and the funds for the acquisition of the property were number provided by the present appellant wife.
Stand of the appellant and the present respondent number.2 and 3 was that being the wife of the plaintiff, the present appellant is entitled to reside in the matrimonial home situated in the plaint schedule property.
She and the present respondent Nos.
The Trial Court as well as the first appellate companyrt companycurrently decreed the suit finding title over the plaint A Schedule property with the plaintiff husband.
2 and 3 were the defendants and respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, who is the husband of the appellant and father of respondent Nos.
2 and 3.
They held that Plaint A Schedule property was purchased by him under Exh.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the second appeal filed in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the Code .
The Suit was one for declaration of title in respect of Plaint A Schedule Property where the defendants were residing and for recovery of possession with mesne profits.
The second appeal was filed by the appellant, who was defendant No.1 in S. No.426 of 1986 on the file of learned first Additional Munsiffs Court, Thiruananthapuram.
