JUDGMENT : (M.B. Snehalatha, J.) In this appeal, the appellants who are the petitioners in O.P. No.1087/2011 of Family Court, Ernakulam call into question the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree of dismissal of the said O.P by the Family Court, Ernakulam. 2. The parties shall be referred to in this appeal as per their rank in O.P.NO.1087/2011. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, averments in O.P.No.1087/2011 are as follows: The marriage of the 1st petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 26.1.1987 as per the rites and customs of the Christian community. The second petitioner is the son born to them in the said wedlock. The 1st petitioner was given 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/- from her house at the time of marriage. The respondent was employed abroad at the time of marriage, and is still employed there. Petition schedule property was purchased by the 1st petitioner for an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- by selling her gold ornaments and with her brother's financial assistance. Though the 1st petitioner paid the entire sale consideration, the petition schedule property was purchased in the joint name of 1st petitioner and respondent. After purchasing the petition schedule property, she constructed a double-storied building in it, spending Rs.10 lakhs. The loan amount of Rs.3 lakhs availed from the Canara Bank was repaid by the 1st petitioner. Though the respondent had availed Rs.2 lakhs from the bank under the pretext of renovation of the house, he misappropriated the said amount. The said loan was also repaid by the 1st petitioner. She spent another sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for the truss work of the petition schedule building. Respondent is trying to alienate the petition schedule property after evicting the petitioners. 1st petitioner is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property, and the respondent has no right over it. Respondent, who has a monthly income of more than Rs.1 lakh, has not provided any maintenance to the petitioners. The following reliefs were sought in the O.P: (i) To declare that the 1st petitioner is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property with an alternate relief of partition of the petition schedule property and to allot ½ share of the 1st petitioner. (ii) Mandatory injunction directing the respondent to assign his share in the property in favour of the 1st petitioner. (ii) Mandatory injunction directing the respondent to assign his share in the property in favour of the 1st petitioner. (iii) Permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating or encumbering the petition schedule property. (iv) For realisation of Rs.7,99,500/- with interest from the respondent and (v) Realisation of Rs.3,75,000/- towards past maintenance. 4. The respondent filed written statement denying the ownership right claimed by the 1st petitioner over the petition schedule property. The averments in the O.P that 1st petitioner was given 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/- cash from her house is denied. No money or ornaments were given to the 1st petitioner from the house. At the time of marriage, the respondent was employed in Qatar and was financially sound. The respondent had entrusted some signed and undated cheque leaves to the 1st petitioner to facilitate her drawing money from the account of the respondent as he was employed abroad. The bank account was opened in the name of the 1st petitioner as advised by the bank manager for facilitating her to withdraw money in the absence of the respondent. Respondent used to send money from Qatar to her bank account for the construction of the house and to meet the expenses of the family. The respondent purchased the petition schedule property by spending his own funds, and he constructed a two- storied residential building on the said property. No common funds or joint funds were utilised for purchasing the property and for the construction of the building, as alleged by the 1st petitioner. The allegation of the 1st petitioner that the petition schedule property was purchased by utilizing the amount received by selling her gold ornaments and also with the financial assistance of her brother etc. are false. The loan amount of Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs were granted by the Canara Bank on the strength of the respondent's employment in Qatar and on the collateral security of the land and building. Since the respondent was employed in Qatar, the said loan amount was transferred by the bank to her bank account. The 1st petitioner had no income or earnings of her own and she had no income at all to purchase the property and to construct the house as alleged by her. The respondent utilised his savings and also the sale proceeds of his family property to purchase the property and construct the building. The 1st petitioner had no income or earnings of her own and she had no income at all to purchase the property and to construct the house as alleged by her. The respondent utilised his savings and also the sale proceeds of his family property to purchase the property and construct the building. It was purchased in the joint name of the 1st petitioner and the respondent. The assessment of the building tax was also made in the joint name of both. The 1st petitioner actually betrayed the respondent by exploiting his love and affection towards her. No money is due to the 1st petitioner, as claimed. Petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. 5. O.P.No.1087/2011 was disposed of by the Family Court, along with three other connected Original Petitions, namely O.P. Nos.1108/2011, 1233/2011 and 1612/2011 between the parties. 6. The evidence consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 8 and RWs 1 to 3 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A11, Exts.B1 to B23 and Ext.X1 series. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants contended that the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and went wrong in dismissing the O.P. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the plaint schedule property exclusively belongs to the respondent since it was he who paid the entire sale consideration for purchasing it and constructed the building therein by spending his own funds. 10. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Family Court calls for any interference in the light of the grounds raised in this appeal. 11. Admittedly, 1st petitioner and respondent were husband and wife and they are now divorced. 12. 1st petitioner claims absolute right over the petition schedule property and she seeks a decree for declaration to that effect with an alternate prayer for partition and separate possession of her ½ right in the said property. She has also made a claim for realisation of Rs.7,99,500/- from the respondent allegedly spent by her to purchase the plaint schedule property and for construction of the house. 13. She has also made a claim for realisation of Rs.7,99,500/- from the respondent allegedly spent by her to purchase the plaint schedule property and for construction of the house. 13. Admittedly, petition schedule land having an extent of 4.480 cents was purchased in the year 1997 by virtue of sale deed bearing No.2281/1997 of SRO Ernakulam in the joint name of the 1st petitioner and respondent. Ext.A2 is the copy of the said sale deed. It has also come out in evidence that subsequent to the purchase of the said land, a residential building was constructed in the said property. 14. According to the 1st petitioner, though the petition scheduled property stands in the joint name of herself and the respondent, she is the absolute owner of the said property as she has spent the entire amount for purchasing the land and constructing the house therein. Her case is that she purchased the land by selling her gold ornaments and also with the financial assistance of her brother. It is her case that it was she who constructed the house by spending her own amounts and utilising the loan availed by her from the bank. 15. Respondent, on the other hand, would contend that he spent the whole amount to purchase the land and construct the building. His case is that 1st petitioner had no source of income or job to purchase the property and construct the building. According to him, he was employed abroad, and by utilising his earnings, he purchased the land in the joint name, and thereafter, he constructed a house in the said property by utilising his own funds. Thus, there are rival claims of exclusive ownership by the 1st petitioner and the respondent over the petition schedule property. 16. 1st petitioner would admit that the respondent was employed abroad at the time of marriage. She would also admit that he was employed abroad even when the O.P. was filed. Though the 1st petitioner would contend that she has exclusive right over the petition schedule property and the building therein, there is no reliable evidence in support of the said contention as rightly found by the learned Family Court. She would also admit that he was employed abroad even when the O.P. was filed. Though the 1st petitioner would contend that she has exclusive right over the petition schedule property and the building therein, there is no reliable evidence in support of the said contention as rightly found by the learned Family Court. Though she would contend that the entire sale consideration for purchasing the property was paid by her and the building was constructed by utilising her own funds, and the petition schedule property exclusively belongs to her, she failed to establish the same as rightly held by the learned Family Court. Exts.B6, B8, B10, B20, and B21 series documents produced by the 1st petitioner would neither prove her case that the entire sale consideration was paid by her for purchasing the property nor prove her case that the house was constructed by her own funds. 17. It has come out in evidence that the respondent has been employed abroad for the past 30 years. Therefore, the case canvassed by the 1st petitioner that there was no contribution from the husband/respondent in purchasing the property and constructing the building at a time when they were living in a cordial relationship is quite unbelievable. 18. Though the respondent/husband filed O.P. No.1612/2011 seeking a declaration of his exclusive right over the petition schedule property, the said O.P was dismissed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, and the said finding has attained finality. The petition schedule property was acquired by the parties at a time when there was no marital discord between the spouses and the property stands in their joint name. 1st petitioner has sought partition of the petition schedule property as an alternative relief. The Family Court declined the said relief on the ground that it is impossible to find out the exact amount supplied by the 1st petitioner and the respondent in acquiring the petition schedule property. 19. Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act comes into play in the said scenario. The Family Court declined the said relief on the ground that it is impossible to find out the exact amount supplied by the 1st petitioner and the respondent in acquiring the petition schedule property. 19. Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act comes into play in the said scenario. Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act is extracted here below: “Where immovable property is transferred for consideration to two or more persons and such consideration is paid out of a fund belonging to them in common, they are, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, respectively entitled to interests in such property identical, as nearly as may be, with the interests to which they were respectively entitled in the fund; and, where such consideration is paid out of separate funds belonging to them respectively, they are, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, respectively entitled to interests in such property in proportion to the shares of the consideration which they respectively advanced. In the absence of evidence as to the interests in the fund to which they were respectively entitled, or as to the shares which they respectively advanced, such persons shall be presumed to be equally interested in the property.” 20. The scope of Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act would run thus: (i) If the property is purchased or obtained on payment of consideration from a common fund, they have interest in the property in proportion to their share in the common fund. (ii) If consideration is paid from their separate funds, then their interest in the property is proportionate to their contribution. (iii) In the absence of evidence as to their share in the joint fund, the interest in the property is equal. All this is subject to the contract to the contrary. 21. Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with the question as to what quantum of interest and its determination in a situation where there are several joint owners of immovable property and the interest of such joint owners has not been specified by them in the sale deed at the time of acquisition of the said immovable property. It deals with the question as to what quantum of interest each one of several transferees would get in the property transferred based on the consideration paid. 22. It deals with the question as to what quantum of interest each one of several transferees would get in the property transferred based on the consideration paid. 22. As per Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the persons will be entitled to the share in the property according to their shares in the consideration which they have invested or advanced out of common funds or separate funds. If the consideration is paid out of separate individual funds, the entitlement in the property is proportionate to such funds advanced. 23. In the absence of evidence as to the interest in the funds to which they were respectively entitled or as to the shares to which they are respectively advanced, such persons shall be presumed to be equally interested in the property. If no evidence is available, then all such persons will be presumed to be equally interested in the property. 24. If the parties concerned are not able to adduce clinching and clear evidence in that regard, then the court has to hold that all the joint purchasers are equally entitled to the said property. 25. In a case where there is no exact evidence as to the consideration paid by each party, transferees are presumed to be equally interested in the property. Equity, leans towards equality, and the rule in question is in consonance with this doctrine of equity, apart from the fact that it is only just and practicable solution which can be adopted where circumstances rule out the evidence. 26. Admittedly, the petition scheduled property stands in the joint name of the 1st petitioner and the respondent, and there is nothing in the title deed of the petition scheduled property to show the exact proportion at which the purchasers contributed to the consideration. In the absence of any evidence as to the exact contribution made by each party, they shall be presumed to be equally contributed. Therefore, it has to be presumed that they have contributed equally to the consideration. Accordingly, 1st petitioner and the respondent are entitled to an equal share of the petition-scheduled property. Therefore, the 1st petitioner is not entitled to get a decree for declaration and mandatory injunction as she has sought. She has also not made out any case for granting the prohibitory injunction. Accordingly, 1st petitioner and the respondent are entitled to an equal share of the petition-scheduled property. Therefore, the 1st petitioner is not entitled to get a decree for declaration and mandatory injunction as she has sought. She has also not made out any case for granting the prohibitory injunction. The claim made by her for realisation of an amount of Rs.7,99,500/- is also untenable. 1st petitioner is entitled to get the alternate relief for partition and share of her ½ right in the petition scheduled property, and the respondent is also entitled to his ½ right in the petition scheduled property. 27. Petitioners' claim regarding past maintenance is unsupported by any evidence, and therefore, we confirm the findings of the learned Family Court declining the said relief. 28. In view of the afore discussions, we find that 1st petitioner is entitled to get a decree for partition of the petition schedule property, and she is entitled to get her ½ right in the said property. Petition schedule property shall be divided by metes and bounds into two equal shares and 1st petitioner is entitled to get separate possession of one such share. 29. In Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and another v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and others (MANU/SC/0772/2022), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that once a preliminary decree is passed by the trial court, the court should proceed with the case for drawing up the final decree suo motu. It was further held that after passing of the preliminary decree, the trial court has to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 CPC, and the court should not adjourn the matter sine die. The Apex Court further held that there is no need to file a separate final decree proceedings, and the court should allow the concerned party to file an appropriate application for drawing up the final decree. The relevant portion of the decision cited supra is extracted below: “33. We are of the view that once a preliminary decree is passed by the Trial Court, the court should proceed with the case for drawing up the final decree suo motu. After passing of the preliminary decree, the Trial Court has to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC. The courts should not adjourn the matter sine die, as has been done in the instant case. After passing of the preliminary decree, the Trial Court has to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC. The courts should not adjourn the matter sine die, as has been done in the instant case. There is also no need to file a separate final decree proceedings. In the same suit, the court should allow the concerned party to file an appropriate application for drawing up the final decree. Needless to state that the suit comes to an end only when a final decree is drawn.” 30. In the result, this appeal stands allowed in part; O.P.No.1087/2011 of Family Court, Ernakulam is allowed in part, and a preliminary decree for partition is passed as follows: (a) Petition schedule property shall be divided by metes and bounds into two equal shares, and 1st petitioner is entitled to get separate possession of one such share. (b) Cost shall come out of the estate. The Family Court, Ernakulam, is directed to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure suo motu without requiring initiation of any separate proceedings. Forward a copy of this judgment to the learned Family Court, Ernakulam. Registry shall transmit the records to the Family Court, Ernakulam, forthwith. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.