D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both sides. ( 2 ) THIS appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20-12-1996, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Tirupati, decreeing the suit in OS. No. 8 of 1996, filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff to the plaint schedule property bearing d. No. 1-6-745-F, with five rooms and electrical fittings, situated at Ward No. 1, indira Nagar, Tirupati Town, and for a consequential direction to the defendant to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff. ( 3 ) THE appellant is the first defendant, the first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the second defendant. ( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. ( 3 ) THE appellant is the first defendant, the first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the second defendant. ( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. ( 5 ) THE case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff had purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed, dated 19-3-1985; that she constructed a house with five rooms in the said site and kept one room for her and let out the remaining rooms to others; that the first defendant is her husband and was doing fish business; that for the last two years he was not looking after the welfare of the plaintiff and in fact he was residing along with the second defendant, who is his concubine; that even though the plaintiff deserted the plaintiff, she was eaking her livelihood by receiving rents from the tenants, who were residing in the plaint schedule property; that at the instance of the second defendant, the first defendant was insisting the plaintiff to execute a sale deed in his favour for the plaint schedule property in order to dispossess the plaintiff to lead happy life with the second defendant, otherwise he would use force to dispossess her from the same; that she has been paying taxes to the Municipality; that the first defendant has not contributed single pie either for the construction or for the maintenance of the house; that the first defendant has no right or title or interest in the said property; that on account of the threat made by the first defendant, the plaintiff apprehends that the tenants who have been residing in three rooms of the plaint schedule property and paying rents may stop payment to her; that the first defendant by using force necked out the plaintiff from the premises for the sole purpose to get evidence that she was not in possession of the property in question; that inasmuch as the first defendant had used force to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, she had no other option except to keep away the first defendant from entering her house by way of filing the present suit seeking declaration of title and possession of the plaint schedule mentioned property. Hence the suit. Hence the suit. ( 6 ) THE first defendant filed written statement almost denying the contentions of the plaintiff and contended in brief that the plaintiff was not entitled for any relief much less declaration of title in respect of the plaint schedule property; that, in nutshell, the suit property was his self acquired property, bring purchased from a third party but in the name of the plaintiff and as the construction was also made by his earnings, the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs sought for. ( 7 ) THE suit against the second defendant was dismissed as not pressed as per the orders, dated 6-9-1993, passed by the Court below. ( 8 ) BASING on the above pleadings, the court below framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of her title to the plaint schedule properties as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of possession as prayed for ? (3) To what relief ? the additional issue framed by the Court below on 22-2-1996 is as follows: whether the defendant has purchased the house site in the name of plaintiff for his benefit and for benefit of his children only as pleaded in Para 10-A of the written statement? ( 9 ) IN support of her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW. l and three others as PWs. 2 to 4 and got marked Exs. A-1 to a-22 on her behalf. While the first defendant, examined himself as D. W. I and three others as DWs. 2 to 4 and got marked exs. B-1 to B-9 on his behalf. ( 10 ) THE point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is - as to whether the plaintiff had established her title over the plaint schedule property and if so to what relief she is entitled to? ( 11 ) AT the outset, I feel it as not necessary to advert to various pleadings and counter pleadings made by the parties and also the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record. ( 12 ) THE essential aspects that were dealt with and recorded by the Court below were that it was very clear from the evidence that actually the site was purchased under Ex. ( 12 ) THE essential aspects that were dealt with and recorded by the Court below were that it was very clear from the evidence that actually the site was purchased under Ex. A-1 by the plaintiff on 19-3-1985; that it was also clear from the evidence that the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the first defendant being wife and husband lived cordially for 16 years and during the said marital life, the plaintiff gave birth to one son and one daughter. ( 13 ) IT was further pointed out by the court below that whatever be the reason, the site was purchased in the name of the plaintiff and the relationship of the plaintiff and the first defendant as wife and husband for 16 years during they got severed their relationship through an order, dated 19-4-1995, in OP. No. 143 of 1990, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Tirupathi. ( 14 ) THE Court below also found that the plea of the first defendant that the purchase of the site in the name of the plaintiff as benami did not stand to the test laid down by the Apex Court in Sree meenakshi Mills Limited v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, AIR 1957 SC 49 . However, basing on the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, the court below had arrived at a conclusion that the said transaction was not a benami transaction and that it was a sale transaction only by the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff is the true owner of the plaint schedule property. ( 15 ) FROM a perusal of the impugned judgment of the Court below, I do not find any irrationality or illegality in appreciation of the evidence on record. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, I uphold the impugned judgment and decree, dated 20-12-1996, in os. No. 8 of 1996, passed by the Court below, in favour of the plaintiff. ( 17 ) NOW, the other question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is - what relief can be granted to the plaintiff ? ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, I uphold the impugned judgment and decree, dated 20-12-1996, in os. No. 8 of 1996, passed by the Court below, in favour of the plaintiff. ( 17 ) NOW, the other question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is - what relief can be granted to the plaintiff ? ( 18 ) IN this regard, it is borne out from the record of this Court that a Division bench of this Court earlier referred the matter to the "lok Adalat" for conciliation since the dispute is between the wife and the husband though the said relationship had ceased by virtue of the order, dated 19-4-1995, in OP No. 143 of 1990, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at tirupathi. ( 19 ) HOWEVER, when the matter came up for hearing, once again on the suggestion made by this Court, both the parties have appeared before this Court on 19-11-2004. ( 20 ) AT this juncture, before this Court, the husband had stated that he is aged about 60 years and at this age he needs some shelter to stay. He further stated that the property in question consists of 5 rooms and if he is permitted to stay in 2 rooms he would gift away those 2 rooms to the children of the plaintiff bom out of the wedlock of the plaintiff and the first defendant. ( 21 ) IN other words, the submission of the first defendant was to the effect that he may be continued in 2 rooms of the plaint schedule property for the stay of his rest of life and he would not request for any further rights thereafter. The plaintiff, however, bluntly rejected the said request of the first defendant. ( 22 ) AT this juncture, this Court had entertained an anxious though as to whether the relief can be moulded in any other manner in the facts and circumstances of the present case? ( 23 ) IF drifted into the past, it was an admitted fact that the plaintiff and the first defendant were the wife and husband respectively and they lived together in a cordial atmosphere for a period of 16 years and had a son and daughter. Thereafter the disputes arose between them. ( 23 ) IF drifted into the past, it was an admitted fact that the plaintiff and the first defendant were the wife and husband respectively and they lived together in a cordial atmosphere for a period of 16 years and had a son and daughter. Thereafter the disputes arose between them. The disputes were like - the husband averred that the plaintiff had developed illicit intimacy with some other person and had been leading an adulterous life and the same is the averment made by the wife. ( 24 ) HOWEVER, taking into consideration the reasons and the veracity of the relevant averments of both the parties, in OP No. 143 of 1990, a finding had been recorded by the principal Senior Civil Judge at Tirupathi to the effect that the plaintiff was leading an adulterous life. Hence, it appears that the past conduct of the plaintiff also was not glorified. However, since both the parties had conceded to have a decree for divorce, a decree had been passed. ( 25 ) NOW, in this background, this Court is in search of the scope for any other alternative relief to the parties? ( 26 ) IT cannot be said that the cordial relationship continued between the plaintiff and the first defendant, as wife and the husband, for over a period of 16 years, which is a considerable time, even though they are now estranged, the status of wife and husband for a considerable period can neither be ignored nor be forgotten. ( 27 ) IN other words, it is only the relationship of wife and husband that is lost but not the memories. The children that were admittedly born to the plaintiff and the first defendant, who stand as live symbols of the past relationship of the contesting parties. Despite the estrangement, the identify of the children is still with the divorced couple as parents. Admittedly, the father is about 60 years old as on today. There is no apparent abhorrence between the father and the children and further there is nothing on record that the father has any other shelter. Despite the estrangement, the identify of the children is still with the divorced couple as parents. Admittedly, the father is about 60 years old as on today. There is no apparent abhorrence between the father and the children and further there is nothing on record that the father has any other shelter. ( 28 ) EVEN assuming that, the first defendant had been living with the second defendant, who is said to be an alien with whom the first defendant had been allegedly leading immoral life, the residence, if any, of the second defendant, cannot be a permanent abode to the first defendant. ( 29 ) THEREFORE, I am in search of the feasibility of applying the Principles of natural Law or equity . ( 30 ) THE expression equity is neither a distinct nor a codified law. The law of equity is known for its superseding capacity incidentally with inherent superior sanctity and the principles of Equity are not unknown to any law. ( 31 ) IN my considered view, the principles of Equity would equally be applied on par with the Principles of Natural Justice. ( 32 ) EVEN the Supreme Court, which was established by the Regulation Act, 1873, was a Court of equity. It could be seen from Section 7 of the said Act that the same was provided for the guidance of judges to apply rules of natural justice in the cases, which are not covered by any rule of law. ( 33 ) COMING to the present case, though we have codified laws covering various fields, while dealing with peculiar facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the principles of Natural Law is desirable to be invoked. ( 34 ) AS already noticed, the plaintiff and the first defendant had lived together as wife and husband for a considerable period and lead marital life with cordiality, symbolized by two children, and at the last lap of the life of the first defendant, I am of the view that he deserves a little bit of comfort in the same place where he was living with his wife and children for a quite long period. Though this is not a vested right of the first defendant, I am conscious that notwithstanding the past of the first defendant, the plaintiff has a moral obligation, if not as a moral right in favour of the first defendant, to allow estranged husband to have shelter in any of the two rooms of the building, which consists five rooms, only as a good gesture. ( 35 ) OF course, this gesture can be extended so long as the first defendant behaves himself. ( 36 ) IN view of the above, the question of the first defendant being the natural father of the children gifting away those two rooms, in which he would be permitted to live, to his own children, after his death or any steps being taking to see that those two rooms also devolve upon his own children does not arise. ( 37 ) IN other words, the plaintiff is entitled to have the declaration of title, as sought for in the suit, as was rightly adjudged by the Court below in her favour. ( 38 ) HOWEVER, having regard to the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment and the decree, dated 20-12-1996, in OS No. 8 of 1996, passed by the Court below, are liable to be confirmed and accordingly they are confirmed, however, subject to the condition of the plaintiff allotting two rooms of her choice, in the plaint schedule property, for the living of the first defendant for the rest of his life, without creating any rights whatsoever, and also subject to his behaviour as a good father to his children and good neighbour to the plaintiff and also others. ( 39 ) IT is made clear that any offending conduct on the part of the first defendant would and should result in deprivation of this benefit, conferred by this Court only in order to meet the Principles of Equity and natural Justice. ( 40 ) SUBJECT to the above conditions, the appeal suit is dismissed, confirming the impugned judgment and decree, dated 20-12-1996, in OS No. 8 of 1996, passed by the Judge, Family Court at Tirupathi. However, there shall be no order as to costs.