JUDGMENT : A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. 1. The appellant challenges the common order dated 30.12.2010, dismissing her claim in O.S. No. 362/2005 for declaration of her absolute title over the building situated in petition ‘A’ schedule property and also mandatory injunction directing the respondents residing in the building to vacate from the premises. The Family court, while declaring that she was the absolute owner of the land and having held that she was entitled for a prohibitory injunction restrained the respondents from causing obstruction to her entry as well as occupying the house for her residence and held that her husband had acquired half right over the building along with her. In fact her husband had filed O.P. No. 129/2008 claiming absolute right over the property as well as the building. But the Family court rejected the claim in respect of the land and declared that he has half right over the building. 2. The appellant/wife alone being aggrieved by the common order, filed Mat. Appeal Nos. 709/2011 and 294/2013 which respectively arise from O.S. No. 362/2005 and O.P. No. 129/2008. Parties are described as shown in Mat. Appeal No. 709/2011 unless otherwise stated. 3. The petitioner/wife married the 1st respondent on 18.04.1989 and two children were born out of the wedlock. After marriage she resided with him in many places as he was employed in Military service and a transferable job. It is contended by the wife that petition ‘A’ schedule property was purchased by her, in her name with her own funds under Ext.A1 sale-deed dated 20.03.1989, a month before her marriage with the 1st respondent. The property was purchased from respondents 2 and 3, who are the parents of the 1st respondent and also his sister. She also expended money for reconstructing the building in petition ‘A’ schedule property. The parents and sister of the 1st respondent are residing in the house with her permission. When she returned to the building in the month of March, 2005 following matrimonial disputes with her husband, the respondents resisted her entry and prevented her from occupying the building for her residence. Hence she filed O.S. No. 362/2005, for a declaration that she is the absolute owner in possession of petition ‘A’ schedule land and building therein. When she returned to the building in the month of March, 2005 following matrimonial disputes with her husband, the respondents resisted her entry and prevented her from occupying the building for her residence. Hence she filed O.S. No. 362/2005, for a declaration that she is the absolute owner in possession of petition ‘A’ schedule land and building therein. She also sought a mandatory injunction directing eviction of the respondents from the house and for a prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from causing obstruction to her enjoyment of the house as well as the entry into the property. 4. The respondents filed joint objection, denying the title and possession of the appellant. According to them, Ext.A1 sale-deed relied on by the appellant is null and void and did not confer any right or title on her. It was contended that Ext.A1 sale-deed was a sham document which did not take effect, since its execution was intended only to be a security for money borrowed by the 3rd respondent from the father of the appellant. It is stated that the 3rd respondent, who is the father of the 1st respondent had borrowed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from appellant’s father Sri. Ramakrishnan, a few weeks before the marriage and in compliance with the insistence of appellant and her father, Ext.A1 sale-deed happened to be executed in her name by the respondents 2 and 3 along with their daughter upon a specific undertaking between parties that the property would be re-conveyed immediately on discharging the amount borrowed by the 3rd respondent. On 04.05.1989, Sri. Ramakrishnan died and later, the loan liability was discharged also. Since appellant became part of the family of respondents after her marriage, they did not insist upon re-conveyance of the property. They further contended that the fund with which the building was constructed exclusively belonged to the 1st respondent and therefore, appellant is not entitled to get declaration of title either over the land or building. She did not have any source to raise any funds of her own. 5. In O.P. No. 129/2008, petitioners sought for a declaration that Ext.A1 sale-deed was null and void and also for a consequential relief that the petition A schedule which is the same subject matter in O.S. No. 362/2005 absolutely belonged to the petitioners. She did not have any source to raise any funds of her own. 5. In O.P. No. 129/2008, petitioners sought for a declaration that Ext.A1 sale-deed was null and void and also for a consequential relief that the petition A schedule which is the same subject matter in O.S. No. 362/2005 absolutely belonged to the petitioners. Petition ‘B’ schedule five cents were purchased in the names of appellant and the 1st petitioner as per the Sale-Deed No. 721/97 of Karunagappally, Sub-Registry. It is contended that the 1st petitioner had expended the entire amount and therefore, the property absolutely belonged to him. 6. The appellant filed written statement, opposing the claim for declaration asserting that ‘B’ schedule property was purchased with their joint funds. 7. Appellant was examined as PW-1 and an independent witness as PW-2. Exts.A1 to A4 were admitted as evidence on her side. The 1st respondent husband was examined as DW-1 and his mother as DW-3. The brother-in-law of DW-1 was examined as DW-2. Exts.B1 to B9 are the documents admitted in evidence on the side of the respondents in O.S. No. 362/2005. 8. As far as Ext.A1 was concerned, Family court held that the said sale-deed was executed for valid consideration, and the land in petition ‘A’ schedule absolutely belonged to the appellant. The prayer for declaration sought by the respondents in O.P. No. 129/2008 that the absolute ownership of the land was with them was consequently rejected. However, it was held that the building in petition ‘A’ schedule property was reconstructed with the funds of both the spouses and therefore, each of them has acquired equal right in the building. The 1st respondent’s claim for declaration over petition B schedule in O.P. No. 129/2008 was also rejected. 9. The sole question that survives in these two appeals is whether appellant is entitled to a declaration that building in petition ‘A’ schedule property absolutely belongs to her. 10. Appellant testified that she spent Rs. 4,50,000/- for construction of the building and the amount had been entrusted with the 1st respondent on different occasions for the purpose of the construction. Her mother, PW-2 also supported her evidence. As regards the source of fund, both the witnesses said that a part of it represented compensation amount received from Tahasilar, Land Acquisition IRE, Chavara. 4,50,000/- for construction of the building and the amount had been entrusted with the 1st respondent on different occasions for the purpose of the construction. Her mother, PW-2 also supported her evidence. As regards the source of fund, both the witnesses said that a part of it represented compensation amount received from Tahasilar, Land Acquisition IRE, Chavara. That appellant had received compensation for acquisition of her share of land in 1992 is proved by Exts.A3 and A4 notices issued from the office of land acquisition. She received Rs. 34,000/- as per these documents. Her mother also received compensation for acquisition of her share of land. These facts are not disputed by the respondents also. PW-2 mother said that adding her share of compensation to that of the daughter, she helped PW-1 by paying a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. But, the fact remains that the building was constructed later in the year 1999. Even though PW-1 deposed that she had deposited the amount in banks, no evidence was adduced to prove the said fact. 11. Yet another contention of the appellant was that she raised money by subscribing to a chitty with one Shanmugham in Kozhikode. He was not examined in the case nor any documents relating to chitty were produced. In one portion of the testimony she said that she had kept Rs. 75,000/- in deposit with a bank. No details of bank deposits were brought on record. Another source of money alleged is that it was raised from sale of her 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. PW-3, a close friend of her family said that it was he who purchased the gold from appellant for a value of Rs. 1,80,000/-. PW-1 and PW-2 also spoke to the same version. According to the court below, circumstances in the case showed that appellant also contributed towards construction of the building though there was nothing to establish that the building came into existence solely out of contribution. In our view, on re-appreciation of evidence, the opinion expressed by the court below cannot be rejected as unreasonable. 12. The 1st respondent/husband led contrary evidence seeking to prove that the entire construction of the building was with his own contribution and it was built out of his hard earned money taken from his Department and raised from other sources also. 12. The 1st respondent/husband led contrary evidence seeking to prove that the entire construction of the building was with his own contribution and it was built out of his hard earned money taken from his Department and raised from other sources also. He was employed in Military service and the records brought before court show that he had taken house building advance to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Exts.B2 and B4 are the proceedings issued from his Department in connection with his request for house building advance. Ext.B1 sanction order dated 15.02.1999 issued by the Grama Panchayat, Karunagappally shows that permission for construction was granted in the joint names of the spouses. According to him, he spent an aggregate amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- for construction. He spoke to other sources also from where he raised the balance amount. 13. The ration card, the receipts paid by 1st appellant for current and water charges all show that the building stands in his name too. Ext.B8 passbook with the State Bank of Travancore shows that he had deposited an amount exceeding Rs. 2,00,000/- while construction of the house was progressing. In addition, he claimed that he had the financial support from his father, who was a driver retired from KSRTC. Ext.B9 certificate issued from KSRTC shows that the father was sanctioned pensionary benefits which amounted to hardly Rs. 1,00,000/-. Besides his oral evidence, his brother-in-law and mother also supported him as DW-2 and DW-3 as respective witnesses. 14. On a re-appreciation of the materials on record, nothing is seen brought out to discredit the evidence given by the respondents. On a consideration of entire facts, evidence and circumstance, it is reasonable to assume that the building in petition ‘A’ schedule property was constructed with the funds spent by both the spouses. Very same conclusion was arrived at by the court below that the appellant and the 1st respondent had acquired joint right in the building meaning thereby that they are co-owners entitled to equal right. We hold that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned common order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam. Appellant’s prayer for mandatory injunction was rightly rejected. 15. In the result, both Mat. Appeals fail and they are dismissed, however, without costs.