K.Harilal, J.
The petitioner is the respondent in O.P.No.51 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda as well as the respondent in I.A.No.111 of 2014 filed therein. The above original petition was filed by the respondent herein for a declaration that the petition B schedule property exclusively belongs to him and also for consequential reliefs of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner herein from alienating the said property. The respondent herein filed I.A.No.111 of 2014 for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Initially the court below passed an order of status quo. The petitioner herein prayed for vacating the order of status quo on the ground that she has the right to mortgage the said property for raising money for the educational purposes of their son. After considering the rival contentions, the court below allowed I.A.No.111 of 2014 by ordering that both parties shall maintain the order of status quo which is in force until the disposal of the original petition. This order is under challenge in this original petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments challenging the findings of the court below whereby the order of status quo was extended up to the disposal of the original petition. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent advanced arguments to justify the findings of the court below in the order under challenge.
3. Going by the impugned order under challenge it could be seen that the court below has found that, prima facie, the petitioner herein is the owner of the A schedule property, as she is the title holder of the property. The title deed in dispute is with respect to B schedule property. The respondent herein had produced Ext.A1(a) and Ext.A1(b) which would show that he had transmitted the money in the name of his wife, to show that the petitioner had no financial source to purchase the property and that the property was purchased by him, using his own earnings, in the name of his wife. Since the petitioner failed to adduce any material to show that she had expended money for purchasing the property, the court below found that the respondent has succeeded in proving a prima facie case. It is also observed that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury are also in his favour.
4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the finding referred to above. The points to be considered are whether the respondent has succeeded in proving a prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience and irreparable injury are also in his favour. Coming to the prima facie case, it could be seen that, in the pleadings, the respondent has specifically alleged that his wife had no financial resources to purchase the property and he himself had purchased the property in the name of his wife by utilising his own earnings.
5. The respondent herein had produced Ext.A1(a) and Ext.A1(b) which would show that he had transmitted the money in the name of his wife, while he was working in Dubai; whereas the petitioner has failed to adduce any material to convince the court that she had expended the money for purchasing the property or she had any source of income to raise the fund required for purchasing the said property. Thus the pleadings in the petition are seen supported by Ext.A1, Ext.A1(a) and Ext.A1(b) produced by the respondent herein. In the absence of any materials contrary to the said documents, the court below is justified in finding that the respondent has succeeded in proving the prima facie case.
6. The prima facie evidence shows that the respondent has expended the money for purchasing the said property. As such, he cannot be restrained from enjoying the property which was purchased by using his money. But at the same time the person in whose name title deeds stands cannot be deprived of enjoying the property, unless until the case advanced by the respondent is proved in evidence. In view of the above rival views, the court below can be justified in directing the parties to maintain status quo till the final disposal of the case on the basis of evidence on record. The balance of convenience also would justify the impugned order. We find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has filed objections seeking permission to mortgage the said property so as to raise money for the educational purposes of their son, but the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that no interlocutory application had been filed seeking permission for the same. In the absence of such an application, we cannot find fault with the court below for not considering or granting the relief as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us.
The original petition is accordingly dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN, (JUDGE) vps K.HARILAL, (JUDGE)